Motor Accident Claim Petition Reference Manual Updated Upto MARCH, 2016

MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIM PETITION
REFERENCE MANUAL
Updated upto
MARCH, 2016.
Prepared by Hanif. S. Mulia

CONTENTS
Sr. Particulars Page
No. No.
1 Preamble . 06
2 By Author . 06
3 Requirement for the police to forward to the Claims Tribunal 07
“Accident Information Report” (AIR) which the Tribunal has
to treat as an application for compensation.
4 How to decide a claim petition wherein Fatal Injuries were 13
sustained by the deceased
5 How to decide a claim petition wherein claimant has 23
sustained Injuries
6 How to determine monthly income of the deceased or injured 50
when no document in support thereof is produced
7 How to determine income of the deceased or injured claimant 51
when there is documentary evidence on record to show that
the deceased or injured claimant was earning in foreign
currency and not in Indian Rupee
8 How to decide a claim petition where defence of Invalid, 54
Learners Licence & Fake Driving Licence and Defense of
Qualification/Badge is taken
9 In which circumstances Insurer is liable to pay compensation 64
when injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the
goods vehicle
10 Liability of insurer to compensation in the cases where 68
injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the private car
as occupants or travelling on two wheeler s as pillion rider
MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.2

11 How to decide a claim petition preferred under section 163A 70
of the Act
12 What if the cheque given for payment of premium of 75
insurance policy is dishonoured
13 What is the meaning of “Arising out of use of Motor Vehicle” 76
14 Whether Finance Company, which has advanced loan for the 78
purpose of purchase of vehicle under the 'Hire Purchase
Agreement' can be said to be the owner of the Vehicle
15 When driver of the unknown vehicle sped away after the 79
accident, whether in such situation claim petition is
maintainable in view of the provisions contained under
Sections 161 & 163 of the Act
16 Whether all the joint tortfeasors are required to be joined as 81
party opponents in the claim petition
17 Whether the point of negligence and liability of insurer, 85
decided by the coordinate Tribunal is binding on the other
coordinate Tribunal, if the claim petition has arisen from the
same accident
18 Whether a claim petition preferred by the a claimant (also the 86
owner of the offending vehicle, without involving another
vehicle) alleging therein that accident occurred because of
the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned by him, is
maintainable.
19 What is the meaning of “Public Place”, as defined u/s 2(34) 89
of the Act
20 What if, the vehicle which met with an accident is sold of by 92
its owner before the date of accident and name of the

transferee owner (purchaser) is not entered into the R.C.
Book
21 Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for want of 98
prosecution or nonappearance of the claimant and/or his
Advocate
22 Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for non production 99
of documents mentioned under Rule 211 of the Gujarat
Motor Vehicles Rules,1988
23 How to decide a claim petition, where insurer has taken a 100
defence of violation of 'Permit'
24 Whether an award passed by the Tribunal can be reviewed 108
25 Details of Proposal Forms for Private Cars/Motorised Two
111
Wheelers Package Policy and Liability Only/ Act Policy
26 Standard wordings in respect of the Policy including Premium 111
computation table, certificate of Insurance and Cover Note
27 Requisition of Vehicle by the Government/Authority 112
28 Liability of Insurance Company in the case wherein the 116
vehicle involved in the accident was stolen.
29 Whether executing court can pass an order of attachment of 117
Residential premises/home?
30 When possession of vehicle is taken over by the transferee 118
along with certificate of insurance, Insurance company is
liable to pay amount of compensation.
31 Commencement of Policy and Breach of Policy 119
32 Which kind of licence required for LMVLGVHGVHTV 123
MGV
33 Registration of Vehicle/Number Plate 129

34 Important Judgments on Section 140 of M.V. Act. 130
35 Damage to the Vehicle and/or property 132
36 Jurisdiction of Tribunal 134
37 Helper/ Cleaner/Coolie 138
38 Premium and Additional Premium 140
39 Driver cum Owner 141
40 Vehicle Hired/Leased 148
41 Notes 149

1. Preamble :-
While deciding a claim petition, preferred under the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), more often then
not, Ld. Judges of the Tribunals are vexed with such questions that it
becomes difficult for them to come to a certain conclusion, main
reasons for such vexation are:
a)Non availability of judgments on certain points,
b)If judgments are available on some points, they
run in different directions,
c) Lack of reference book to decide, as to whether
the insurance policy is 'Act Policy' (Statutory
Policy) or 'Comprehensive Policy' (Package
Policy).
HOME
2. By Author :-
By way of this Manual, an attempt is made to help Judicial
Officers to decide claim petitions easily, and more particularly, in
accordance with the law. Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts
have laid down principles/guidelines to decide claim petitions, which
will be discussed hereinbelow.
HOME

3. Requirement for the police to forward to the Claims Tribunal
“Accident Information Report” (AIR) which the Tribunal has to
treat as an application for compensation:
3.1 The Bench comprising of Three Hon'ble Lordships of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash v/s National
Insurance Com. Ltd, reported in 2010 (2) GLR 1787 (SC) has
given following directions to Police and Tribunals.
A) Directions to the Police Authorities :
 The Director General of Police of each State is directed to
instruct all police stations in his State to comply with the
provisions of Sec. 158(6) of the Act. For this purpose, the
following steps will have to be taken by the Station
House Officers of the jurisdictional police stations :
(i) Accident Information Report ('AIR', for short) in
Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 shall be submitted by the police (Station House
Officer) to the jurisdictional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the
F.I.R. In addition to the particulars required to be
furnished in Form No.54, the police should also
collect and furnish the following additional
particulars in the AIR to the Tribunal :
(i) The age of the victims at the time of accident;
(ii) The income of the victim;
(iii) The names and ages of the dependent family
members.

(ii) The AIR shall be accompanied by the attested
copies of the F.I.R., site
sketch/mahazar/photographs of the place of
occurrence, driving licence of the driver, insurance
policy (and if necessary, fitness certificate) of the
vehicle and post mortem report (in case of death) or
the injured or dependent family members of the
deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal.
(iii) Simultaneously, a copy of the AIR with
annexures thereto shall be furnished to the Insurance
Company concerned to enable the insurer to process
the claim.
(iv) The police shall notify the first date of hearing
fixed by the Tribunal to the victim (injured) or the
family of the victim (in case of death) and the driver,
owner and insurer. If so directed by the Tribunal, the
police may secure their presence on the first date of
hearing.
B) Directions to the Claims Tribunals :
The Registrar General of each High Court is directed
to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State to register
the reports of accidents received under Sec. 158(6)
of the Act as applications for compensation under
Sec. 166(4) of the Act and deal with them without
waiting for the filing of claim applications by the

injured or by the family of the deceased. The
Registrar General shall ensure that necessary
registers, forms and other support is extended to the
Tribunal to give effect to Sec. 166(4) of the Act.
 For complying with Sec. 166(4) of the Act, the
jurisdictional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals shall
initiate the following steps :
(a) The Tribunal shall maintain an institution register for
recording the AIRs which are received from the Station
House Officers of the police stations and register them as
miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are
directly filed with reference to an AIR, they should also
be recorded in the register.
(b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs as miscellaneous
petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as
to enable the police to notify such date to the victim
(family of the victim in the event of death) and the
owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the
accident. Once, the claimant(s) appear, the
miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim
petition. Where a claimant(s) file the claim petition even
before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR
may be tagged to the claim petition.
(c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the
AIR relates to a real accident and is not the result of any
collusion and fabrication of an accident (by any "police

officerAdvocatedoctor" nexus, which has come to light
in several cases).
(d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain
the dependent family members/legal heirs. The
jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the
names of the dependent legal heirs.
(e) The Tribunal shall categorise the claim cases
registered, into those where the insurer disputes liability
and those where the insurer does not dispute the
liability.
(f) Wherever the insurer does not dispute the liability
under the policy, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour
to determine the compensation amount by a summary
enquiry or refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for
settlement, so as to dispose of the claim petition itself,
within a timeframe not exceeding six months from the
date of registration of the claim petition.
(g) The Insurance Companies shall be directed to deposit
the admitted amount or the amount determined, with
the Claims Tribunals within 30 days of determination.
The Tribunals should ensure that the compensation
amount is kept in a fixed deposit and disbursed as per
the directions contained in Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma
Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176.
(h) As the proceeding initiated in pursuance of Secs.
158(6) and 166(4) of the Act are different in nature

from an application by the victims(s) under Sec. 166(1)
of the Act, Sec. 170 will not apply. The insurers will
therefore be entitled to assist the Tribunal (either
independently or with the owners of the vehicles) to
verify the correctness in regard to the accident, injuries,
age, income and dependants of the deceased victim and
in determining the quantum of compensation.
C) Direction with respect to investment:
In para No. 28 & 29 of Jai Prakash's case (supra) it has been
held as under:
“28. To protect and preserve the compensation amount
awarded to the families of the deceased victim special
schemes may be considered by the Insurance Companies in
consultation with Life Insurance Corporation of India,
State Bank of India or any other Nationalised Banks. One
proposal is for formulation of a scheme in consultation
with the Nationalised Banks under which the
compensation is kept in a fixed deposit for an appropriate
period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the
claimants without any need for the claimants having to
approach either the Court or their Counsel or the Bank for
that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount
of compensation is utilised only for the benefit of the
injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the
dependent family”.
29. We extract below the particulars of a special scheme

offered by a Nationalised Bank at the instance of the Delhi
High Court :
(i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the
period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in
the savings account of the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the
Bank in safe custody. However, the original passbook shall
be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the
F.D.R.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to
the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and
the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due
verification by the Bank of the identity card of the
claimant.
(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without
the permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the
fixed deposit without the permission of the Court.
(ix) The claimant can operate the Savings Bank account from
the nearest branch of U.CO. Bank and on the request of
the claimant, the Bank shall provide the said facility”.
HOME

4. How to decide a claim petition wherein Fatal Injuries were
sustained by the deceased:
4.1 In Sarla Verma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation, reported
in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) = AIR 2009 SC 3104 guidelines for
determination of multiplier, future prospects of the deceased,
deduction towards personal and living expenditures are issued.
The ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) was
considered by the Three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan,
reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and it is held that ratio laid
down in the case of Saral Verma (supra) should be followed by
the all the Tribunals. The principles laid down in the case of
Srala Veram and Reshma Kumari (supra) qua determination of
multiplier, future prospects of the deceased, deduction towards
personal and living expenditures are as under:
a) Choice of Multiplier:
Age of the Deceased Multiplier

Upto 15 years 15
15 to 20 years 18
21 to 25 years 18
26 to 30 years 17
31 to 35 years 16
36 to 40 years 15
41 to 45 years 14
46 to 50 years 13
51 to 55 years 11
56 to 60 years 9
61 to 65 years 7
Above 65 years 5

b) What should be the multiplier in the case of Fatal injury case,
where deceased was unmarried son/daughter:
There are difference of opinion as to what should be the

multiplier in the case of fatal injury case, where deceased was
unmarried son/daughter. In Shyam Singh, reported in 2011
(7) SCC 65 = 2011 ACJ 1990 (SC), it has been held that
Multiplier in the case of death of unmarried son/daughter,
proper multiplier should be arrived at by assessing average
age of parents of the deceased. But different views are taken
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of P. S. Somnathan v/s
Dist. Insurance Officer, reported in 2011 ACJ 737 (SC), Amrit
Bhanu Shali v/s NI Com., reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC),
Saktidevi v/s NI Com, reported in 2010 (14) SCC 575 and
Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan, reported in 2013 ACJ
1253 (SC). In the above referred cases it has been held that in
the case of death of unmarried son/daughter, multiplier
should be a applied on the basis of age of the deceased and
not on the basis of average age of the parents of the deceased.
c) Future Prospect of Deceased:
In para No.11 of the Sarla Verama's (supra) judgment it is

held as under:
“In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in
favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased
towards future prospects. where the deceased had a

permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual
income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary'
should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition
should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50
years. There should be no addition, where the age of
deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being
applied or different methods of calculations being adopted.
Where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed
salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the
courts will usually take only the actual income at the time
of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances”.
4.2 In the case of Sanjay Verma v/s Haryana Roadways,
reported in 2014 (3) SCC 210, a threejudges Bench of
Hon'ble Apex court, after considering the ratio laid down in
the case of Reshma Kumari(supra) has held in para No.15 as
under:
15: Answering the above reference a three Judge Bench of
this Court in Reshma Kumari v/s Madan Mohan (2013) 9
SCC 65 (para 36) reiterated the view taken in Sarla
Verma (supra) to the effect that in respect of a person who
was on a fixed salary without provision for annual
increments or who was selfemployed the actual income at

the time of death should be taken into account for
determining the loss of income unless there are
extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the
expression “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances”
is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Devi v/s
New India Insurance Company Limited (2010) 14 SCC
575 there is a practical application of the aforesaid
principle. The near certainty of the regular employment of
the deceased in a government department following the
retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to
compute the loss of income by taking into account the
possible future earnings. The said loss of income,
accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the
deceased was earning at the time of his death.
4.3 Even in para No.13 of the above referred judgment is
observed as under:
“13. The view taken in Santosh Devi (supra) has been
reiterated by a Bench of three Judges in Rajesh and Others
vs. Rajbir Singh and Others[(2013) 9 SCC 54] by holding
as follows :
“8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended
to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as
laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable
also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is
clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not

30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In
other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with
fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40
years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual
income of the deceased while computing future prospects.
Needless to say that the actual income should be income
after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in
case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in the case
of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having
regard to the fact that in the case of those selfemployed or
on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of
superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just
and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case
where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60
years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair
and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition
thereafter.”
4.4 From the above referred observations, it becomes

clear that where the deceased had a permanent job and in
other cases, where it is proved that there was scope for the
increase in the income of the deceased, addition, varying from
50% to 15% may be made, depending on the age of the
deceased. Addition should be 50% and if the age of the
deceased was between 40 to 50 years, addition should be only

30% and an addition of 15% in the case where the deceased
was between the age group of 50 to 60 years.
4.5 It is also required to be born in mind that House Rent
Allowance, Medical Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Dearness
Pay, Employees Provident Fund, Government Insurance
Scheme, General Provident Fund, C.C.A. etc should be treated
as part and parcel of the income of the deceased, while
calculating income of the deceased for the purpose of
computing compensation. Reference may be made to ratio
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma
v/s Bachitar Singh, reported in 2011 ACJ 1441 (SC) also see
Vimal Kanwar v/s Kishore Dan, reported in 2013 ACJ 1441.
4.6 Now, the question is, when a departure from the above
referred guideline should be made? In this regards, reference
is required to be made to the ratio laid down in the case of K.
R. Madhusudhan v/s Administrative Officer, reported in AIR
2011 SC 979. In the said case deceased was aged 53 years and
was working as Senior Assistant in Karnataka Electricity
Board. As per Board Agreement, after completion of five
years, pay revision was compulsory and evidence was
produced by the claimants showing that if deceased would
have been alive he would have reached gross salary of Rs.
20,000/ p.m. Hence, even though deceased was above 50
years of age, it is held that claimants are entitled to

compensation calculated on the basis of such increased
income.
d) Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenditures:
4.7 In Para No.14 of Sarla Veram's case (supra) it is held as
under:
“Having considered several subsequent decisions of this
court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3rd) where the
number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, onefourth
(1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4
to 6, and onefifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant
family members exceed six”.
4.8 In Para No.14 of Sarla Veram's case (supra) it is held as
under:
“Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there
is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time,
in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically”.
4.9 Meaning thereby, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3 rd) where the

number of dependant family members is less than 3, onefourth
(1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to
6, and onefifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family
members exceed six. And in the cases where deceased was
unmarried son/daughter, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be onehalf.

4.9.1. It has been further held in Para No.15 of Sarla Verma's
case (supra) that:
“Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a
dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents,
because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the
deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother
would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be
treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor
and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where
family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income
of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers,
his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one
third and contribution to the family will be taken as two
third”.

4.10 Plain reading of above referred observations, makes it clear
that, unless, it is proved that father of the deceased was not
having independent income, father of the deceased cannot be
treated as dependant. Same analogy applies in the cases of
where claim petition is preferred by the sibling/s of deceased
who was/were unmarried brother/sister of such deceased. But if,
it is proved that father of the deceased was not having
independent income, father of the deceased can be treated as
dependant. In the cases where claim petition is preferred by the
mother, sibling/s who were solely dependant on the income of
the of deceased, in such cases, onethird (1/3 rd) may be
deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased.
4.11 In Srala Veram (supra) it has been held in par 26 that:
“In addition, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.
5,000/ under the head of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 5,000/
towards funeral expenses. The widow will be entitled to Rs.
10,000/ as loss of consortium'.
4.12 But a bench of Three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajesh v/s Rajbir Singh , reported in 2013
ACJ 1403 has held that claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/ under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor
children, Rs. 25,000/ towards funeral expenses and the widow
will be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of consortium.

4.13 Ratio laid down in the case of Rajesh (supra) qua
consortium, funeral expenditure etc is followed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Savita v/s Bindar Singh, reported in 2014
ACJ 1261 (SC) and Anjani Singh v/s Salauddin, reported in 2014
ACJ 1565 (SC).
4.14 In the case of Jiju Kuruwila v/s Kunjujamma Mohan, 2013
ACJ 2141 (SC), it is held that each child of the deceased is
entitled for Rs.1,00,000/ under the head of loss of love and
affection. Same is followed in 2015 ACJ 598 (SC) – Neeta v/s
Divisional Manager.
4.15 In 2015 STPL(Web) 204 SC Shashikala v/s

Gangalakshmamma, a reference to larger Bench is made since the
bench disagreed only insofar as the addition towards the future
prospects in case of selfemployed or fixed wages to be added to
the compensation towards the dependency, the matter directed
to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for
appropriate orders towards the constitution of a suitable larger
Bench to decide the said issue.
HOME

5. How to decide a claim petition wherein claimant has sustained
Injuries:
5.1 If the claim petition is preferred u/s 166 of the Act, in
injury cases, choice of multiplier remains the same, as in the
case of fatal injuries cases. Deductions towards personal and
living expenditures are not made in injuries case. To
determine the future loss of income, ratio laid down in the
case of Raj Kumar v/s Ajay Kumar, reported in 2012 ACJ 1 =
2011 (1) SCC 343 is required to be followed. In paragraph 6
of the said decision, the various elements of compensation are
enumerated as under:
"Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Nonpecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity)".
5.2 Compensation in the case, where an injured victim is

Government Servant/Salaried person, whose salary has increased
after the accident and has not sustained any financial loss:
5.2.1 The concept of awarding compensation is : that no
amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the
appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that
whenever any amount is determined as the compensation
payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object
is to compensate such injury" so far as money can compensate"
because it is impossible to equate the money with the human
sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a
broken and shattered physical frame.
5.2.2 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v/s Ajay
Kumar, reported in 2011 ACJ 1 = 2011 (1) SCC 343, has held
in para No.10 as under:
“… On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in
government service, the loss of his left hand may not
result in loss of employment and he may still be continued
as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and
in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be
100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60%
which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact,

there may not be any need to award any compensation
under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant
continues in government service, though he may be
awarded compensation under the head of loss of
amenities as a consequence of losing his hand...”
5.2.3 Reference is also required to be made to ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gurdipsinh s/o
Bisensingh Sadhu vs. Chauhan Bhupendrakumar Udesing,
reported in 1980 GLR 221. In the said judgment, it is held that
the Court can make rough estimate about loss of earning
capacity in the light of the facts and circumstances and the
available data of medical evidence on record. In the said case,
Hon'ble High Court had estimated the loss of earning capacity
at 25% of actual income and claimant was awarded
Rs.45,000, though there was no immediate reduction in his
salary as a Technical Assistant in O.N.G.C. Relying upon the
said decision, Hon'ble Division bench of Gujarat High Court
has held in the case of Mohanbhai Gemabhai vs. Balubhai
Savjibhai, reported in 1993(1) GLR 249 (para 20) that:
“No doubt, it is imperative for the Tribunal to consider
the facts and circumstances, and the medical evidence,
showing the extent of physical impairment. If no precise
and direct evidence showing the percentage or extent of
the disablement is spelt out, the Tribunal can make rough
and reasonable estimate of loss of earning capacity so as

to determine the just amount of compensation under the
head of 'prospective economic loss'.”
5.2.4 Even the observations of House of Lords, reported in
1912 AC 496 are very relevant and same can be taken into
consideration. Reference required to be made to the ratio laid
down in 2013 ACJ 79 – para 20.
5.2.5 From the above referred ratios of Hon'ble Apex Court
and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it becomes clear that
Tribunal can grant compensation to those injured persons who
have not suffered any financial loss or whose salary income
have actually increased after the date of accident and such
compensation should not be under the head of 'loss of Future
Earnings' but under the head of 'Loss off Amenities' Such
claimants are entitled for such amount of compensation,
calculated on the basis of 1/4th of the net salary income, which
they were getting at the time of accident.
5.3A What should be reasonable amount of compensation in the
cases where minor has sustained serious injuries in vehicular
accident:
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v/s Divisional
Manager, reported in 2013 ACJ 2445. Wherein in para No.12
it is held has under:
“12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of

the compensation in the case of children suffering disability
on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the
relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various
High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate
compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual
expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the
disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body,
Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and
above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability
upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are
exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the
instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant
had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months
causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the
parents.”
5.3 Determination of permanent Partial Disablement of the

claimant:
5.3.1. In the cases where injured had sustained more that
one fracture injuries, it may appear to Tribunal that disability
certificate issued by the Doctor depicts the higher value of
disability than the injured claimant has actually sustained. In
such situation, Ld. Judge of the Tribunal finds it difficult to
arrive at the exact amount of disability sustained by the
injured claimant. Normally, Doctors issue disability certificate
on the basis of formula invented by Dr. Henry H. Kessler in his

book titled as 'Disability – Determination & Evaluation'. For
determination of disability in such cases, Doctors apply
formula evolved by Dr. Henry H. Kessler. Said Formula reads
as under:
A+{ [B (100A)] / 100}
5.3.2. In the said formula, 'A' stands for higher value of

partial disablement, whereas 'B' stands for lower value of
partial disablement. Doctors normally, take disadvantage of
the comments given on page No.49 of the above referred
book. Careful reading of the said comments, leads to the
conclusion that when injured victim/claimant has sustained
injuries, which resulted into two or more fractures on two
different limbs of the body, then in such situation disablement
in relation to whole body may be assessed as per the above
referred formula. But above referred formula does not apply in
the cases where claimant has sustained two or more fractures
on the same limb i.e one fracture on right hand and second on
left hand or one fracture on right lag and second on the left
leg. It is also mentioned in the said book that lower part of the
body i.e. legs or upper part of body i.e. two hands are
considered as one limb of the body (lower limb or upper limb)
and when victim/claimant has sustained fractures on the one
particular limb then in such case, disablement in relation to
whole may be assessed as one half of the permanent partial

disablement assessed by the doctor. Say for an example,
claimant has sustained one fracture injury on right leg and
doctor has assessed disability in relation to right lower limb as
27% and second fracture injury on left leg and doctor has
assessed disability in relation to left lower limb as 7% and if,
we apply simple principle in the facts of the above referred
example, the disablement in relation to whole body, comes to
17%. (27% in relation to right lower limb plus permanent
partial impairment of 7% in relation to left lower limb, divided
by two [27% + 7%] / 2). But, if we apply the above referred
formula, disablement in relation to whole body comes to
32.11%. {27 + [7 (100 – 27) / 100]}. From the above
referred discussion, it becomes clear that when
victim/claimant has sustained more than one fractures on one
limb and when victim/claimant has sustained more than one
fractures on two limbs, assessment of disablement in relation
to whole body is required to be assessed by applying different
formulas. Book written by Dr. Henry H. Kessler, namely,
'Disability – Determination & Evaluation' is considered to be
the authority as far as calculation of permanent partial
disablement is concerned. However, it is to be noted that Dr.
Henry H. Kessler has also mentioned in his book that there is
always variation of plus/minus 5%, in the permanent partial
disablement assessed by the doctor. Therefore, while deciding
permanent partial impairment of the injured claimant, above
referred facts are required to be remembered.

5.3.3 Reference may also be made to 'Manual For Doctors
To Evaluate Permanent Physical Impairment', which is
based on expert group meeting on disability evaluation and
national seminar on disability evaluation and dissemination,
G.G.H.S. W.H.O. A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi 1981. Reference may
also be made to 'Disability Guidelines issued by Office of
Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, dated 1 st
June 2001. Guidelines issued in the above referred reports are
as under:
5.3.3.1. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical

Impairment in Upper Limbs:
1. The estimation of permanent impairment depends upon the
measurement of functional impairment, and is not expression
of a personal opinion.
2. The estimation and measurement must be made when the
clinical condition is fixed and unchangeable.
3. The upper extremity is divided into two component parts
the arm component and the hand component.
4. Measurement of the loss of function of arm component
consists in measuring the loss of motion, muscle strength an
coordinated activities.
5. Measurement of the loss of function of hand component
consists in determining the Prehension, Sensation & Strength.
For estimation of Prehension: Opposition, lateral pinch,
Cylindrical grasp, spherical grasp and hook grasp have to be
assessed as shown in the column of “prehension” component
in the proforma.
6. The impairment of the entire extremity depends on the
combination of the functional impairment of both
components.
ARM COMPONENT:
Total value of arm component is 90%.
Principles of Evaluation of range of motion of joints
1. The value for maximum R.O.M. in the arm component is
90%.
2. Each of the three joints of the arm is weighted equally
(30%).
Example
Fracture of the right shoulder joint may affect range of motion
so that active adduction is 90degree. The left shoulder exhibits
a range of active abduction of 180degree. Hence there is loss
of 50% of abduction movement of the right shoulder. The
percentage loss of arm component in the shoulder is 50 x 0.03
or 15% loss of motion for the arm component.
If more than one joint is involved, same method is applied,
and the losses in each of the affected joints are added.
Say for example:
Loss of abduction of the shoulder = 60%
Loss of extension of the wrist = 40%
Then, loss of range of motion for the
arm = (60 x 0.30) + (40 x 0.30) = 30%
Principles of Evaluation of strength of muscles:
1. Strength of muscles can be tested by manual testing like 05
grading.
2. Manual muscle gradings can be given percentages like
3. – 100%
4. – 80%
5. – 60%
6. – 40%
7. – 20%
8. – 0%
9. The mean percentage of muscle strength loss is multiplied
by 0.30.
If there has been a loss of muscle strength of more than one
joint, the values are added as has been described for loss of
range of motion.
Principles of Evaluation of coordinated activities:
1. The total value for coordinated activities is 90%.
2. Ten different coordinated activities are to be tested as
given in the Proforma.
3. Each activity has a value of 9%.

Combining values for the Arm Component:
1. The value of loss of function of arm component is obtained
by combining the values of range of movement, muscle
strength & coordinated activities, using the combining
formula
A+ B (90A)/90
Where 'A' = higher value & 'B' = lower value
Example
Let us assume that an individual with a fracture of the right
shoulder joint has in addition to 16.5% loss of motion of his
arm, 8.3% loss of strength of muscles, and 5% loss of co
ordination. We combine these values as :
Range of motion : 16.5%
Strength of Muscles : 8.3%
Result A 16.5 +8.3(9016.5)/90 =23.3 %
Coordination : 5%
Result B 23.3 + 5(9023.3)/90 =27.0%
So total value of arm component = 27.0%
HAND COMPONENT:
Total value of hand component is 90%.
The functional impairment of hand is expressed as loss of
prehension, loss of sensation, loss of strength.

Principles of Evaluation of Prehension :
Total value of Prehension is 30%. It includes :
(A) Opposition (8%). Tested against
Index finger (2%). Middle finger (2%)
Ring finger (2%) & Little finger (2%)
(B) Lateral Pinch (5%). Tested by asking the patient to hold a
key.
(C) Cylindrical Grasp (6%). Tested for
(D) Large object of 4 inch size (3%)
(E) Small object of 1 inch size (3%)
(F) Spherical Grasp (6%). Tested for
(G) Large object 4 inch size (3%)
(H) Small object 1 inch size (3%)
(I) Hook Grasp (5%). Tested by asking the patient to lift a
bag.
Principles of Evaluation of Sensations:
Total value of sensation is 30%. It includes :
1. Grip Strength (20%)
2. Pinch Strength (10%)
3. Strength will be tested with hand dynamometer or by
clinical method (Grip Method).
10% additional weightage to be given to the following
factors :
1. Infection
2. Deformity
3. Malaignment
4. Contractures
5. Cosmetic appearance
6. Abnormal Mobility
7. Dominant Extremity (4%)
Combining values of the hand component:
The final value of loss of function of hand component is
obtained by summing up values of loss of prehension,
sensation and strength.
Combining Values for the Extremity:
Values of impairment of arm component and impairment of
hand component are combined by using the combining
formula.
Example
Impairment of the arm = 27% 64 +27(90
64)/90=71.8%
Impairment of the hand = 64%

Impairment in Lower Limbs:
The lower extremity is divided into two components: Mobility
component and Stability component.

MOBILITY COMPONENT:
Total value of mobility component is 90%. It includes range of
movement and muscle strength.
Principles of Evaluation of Range of Movement:
1. The value of maximum range of movement in the mobility
component is 90%.
2. Each of the three joints i.e. hip, knee, footankle
component, is weighted equally – 0.30.
Example
A Fracture of the right hip joint may affect range of motion so
that active abduction is 27degree. The lift hip exhibits a range
of active abduction of 54degree. Hence, there is loss of 50% of
abduction movement of the right hip. The percentage loss of
mobility component in the hip is 50, 0.30 or 15% loss of
motion for the mobility component.
If more than one joint is involved, same method is applied and
the losses in each of the affected joints are added.
Example
Loss of abduction of the hip = 60%
Loss of extension of the knee = 40%
Loss of range of motion for the mobility component
= (60 x 0.30) + (40 x 0.30) = 30%.

Principles of Evaluation of Muscle Strength:
1. The value for maximum muscle strength in the leg is 90%.
2. Strength of muscles can be tested by manual testing like 05
grading.
3. Manual muscle gradings can be given percentages like
Grade 0 = 100%
Grade 1= 80%
Grade 2= 60%
Grade 3= 40%
Grade 4= 20%
Grade 5= 0%
4. Mean percentage of muscle strength loss is multiplied by
0.30.
5. If there has been a loss of muscle strength of more than one
joint, the values are added as has been described for loss of
range of motion.
Combining Values for the Mobility Component:
Let us assume that the individual with a fracture of the right
hip joint has in addition to 16% loss of motion 8% loss of
strength of muscles.
Combing Values:
Motion 16%, Strength 8%
= 16 +8(9016)/90 =22.6%
Where 'a' = higher value, 'b' = lower value.
STABILITY COMPONENT:
1. Total value of stability component is 90%
2. It is tested by 2 methods
3. Based on scale method.
4. Based on clinical method
Three different readings (in kilograms) are taken measuring
the total body weight (W), scale ‘A’ reading and scale ‘B’
reading. The final value is obtained by the formula :
Difference in body weight divided by Total body weight,
multiplied by 90.
In the clinical method of evaluation nine different activities
are to be tested as given in the proforma. Each activity has a
value of ten percent (10%).

Impairment of Trunk (Spine):
The local effects of lesions of spine can be divided into
traumatic and nontraumatic lesions.
TRAUMATIC LESIONS
Cervical Spine Fracture
Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss
of Physical Function to Whole Body.
A. Vertebral compression 25%, one or two vertebral adjacent
bodies, no fragmentation, no involvement of posterior
elements, no nerve root involvement, moderate neck rigidity
and persistent soreness.

B. Posterior elements with Xray evidence of moderate partial
dislocation.
(a) No nerve root involvement, healed 15
(b) With persistent pain, with mild motor and sensory
Manifestations 25
(c) With fusion, healed no permanent motor or sensory
changes 25
C. Severe dislocation, fair to good reduction with surgical
fusion
(a) No residual motor or sensory changes 25
(b) Poor reduction with fusion, persistent radicular pain,
motor involvement, only slight weakness and numbness 35
(c) Same as (b) with partial paralysis, determine additional
rating for loss of use of extremities and sphincters.
Cervical Intervertebral Disc:
1. Operative, successful removal of disc, with relief of acute
pain, no fusion, no neurological residual 10
2. Same as (1) with neurological manifestations, persistent
pain, numbness, weakness in fingers 20
Thoracic and Dorsolumbar Spine Fracture:
Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss
of Physical Function to Whole Body

A. Compression 25%, involving one or two vertebral bodies,
mild, no fragmentation, healed no neurological
manifestations.10
B. Compression 50%, with involvement posterior elements,
healed, no neurological manifestations, persistent pain, fusion
indicated. 20
C. Same as (B) with fusion, pain only on heavy use of back.
20
D. Total paraplegia. 100
E. Posterior elements, partial paralysis with or without fusion,
should be rated for loss of use of extremities and sphincters.
Low Lumbar:
1. Fracture
2. Vertebral compression 25%, one or two adjacent vertebral
bodies, little or fragmentation, no definite pattern or
neurological changes.15
3. Compression with fragmentation posterior elements,
persistent pain, weakness and stiffness, healed, no fusion, no
lifting over 25 pounds 40
4. Same as (B), healed with fusion, mild pain 20
5. Same as (B), nerve root involvement to lower extermities,
determine additional rating for loss of industrial function to
extremities
6. Same as (c), with fragmentation of posterior elements, with
persistent pain after fusion, no neurologic findings 30

7. Same as (c), with nerve root involvement to lower
extremities, rate with functional loss to extremities
8. Total paraplegia 100
9. Posterior elements, partial paralysis with or without fusion,
should be rated for loss of use of extremities and sphincters.
@. Neurogenic Low Back Pain – Disc Injury
A. Periodic acute episodes with acute pain and persistent body
list, tests for sciatic pain positive, temporary recovery 5 to 8
weeks 50
B. Surgical excision of disc, no fusion, good results, no
persistent sciatic pain 10
C. Surgical excision of disc, no fusion, moderate persistent
pain and stiffness aggravated by heavy lifting with necessary
modification of activities 20
D. Surgical excision of disc with fusion, activities of lifting
moderately modified 15
E. Surgical excision of disc with fusion, persistent pain and
stiffness aggravated by heavy lifting, necessitating
modification of all activities requiring heavy lifting – 25
NONTRAUMATIC LESIONS:
Scoliosis
The whole Spine has been given rating of 100% and region
wise the following percentages are given:
Dorsal Spine 50%
Lumbar Spine – 30%
Cervical Spine – 20%

Kobb’s method for measurement of angle of curve in standing
position is to be used. The curves have been divided into three
sub groups :
Particulars Cervical Thoracic spine Lumber Spine

Spine
30degree 2.00% 5.00% 6.00%
(Mild)
3060degree 3.00% 15.00% 12.00%
(Moderate)
Above 5.00% 25.00% 33.00%
60degree
(Severe)
In the curves ranging above 60 0, cardiopulmonary

complications are to be graded separately. The junctional
curves are to be given that rating depending upon level of
apex of curve. For example, if apex of dorsolumbar curve falls
in the dorsal spine the curve can be taken as a dorsal curve.
When the scoliosis is adequately compensated, 5% reduction
is to be given from final rating (for all assessment primary
curves are considered for rating).
Kyphosis
The same total rating (100%) as that suggested for scoliosis is
to be given for kyphosis. Regionwise percentages of physical
impairment are:
Dorsal Spine – 50%
Cervical Spine – 30%
Lumbar Spine – 20%
For dorsal spine the following further gradings are :
Less than 20degree – 10%
21degree – 40degree – 15%
41degree – 60degree – 20%
Above 60degree – 25%
For kyphosis of lumbar and cervical spine 5% and 7%

respectively have been allocated.
Paralysis of Flexors & Extensors of Dorsal and Lumbar Spine:
The motor power of these muscles to be grouped as follows :
Normal
Weak 5%
Paralysed 10%
Paralysis of Muscles of Cervical Spine:
Particulars Normal Weak Paralysed

Flexors 0 5.00% 10.00%
Extensors 0 5.00% 10.00%
Rotation 0 5.00% 10.00%
Side 0 5.00% 10.00%
Bending
Miscellaneous:
Those conditions of the spine which cause stiffness and part
etc., are rated as follows :
A. Subjective symptoms of pain, No involuntary muscle spasm,
Not substantiated by demonstrable structural pathology.0

B. Pain, Persistent muscle spasm and stiffness of spine,
substantiated by demonstrable and radiological changes.10%
C. Same as B, with moderate radiological changes.15%
D. Same as B, with severe radiological changes involving any
one of the region of spine (cervical, dorsal or lumbar)20%
E. Same as D, involving whole spine30%
In Kyphoscoliosis, both curves to be assessed separately and
then percentage of disability to be summed.

Impairment in Amputees:
Basic Guidelines:
1. In case of multiple amputees, if the total sum of percentage
permanent physical impairment is above 100%, it should be
taken as 100%.
2. Amputation at any level with uncorrectable inability to
wear and use prosthesis, should be given 100% permanent
physical impairment.
3. In case of amputation in more than one limb percentage of
each limb is counted and another 10% will be added, but
when only toes or fingers are involved only another 5% will be
added.
4. Any complication in form of stiffness, neuroma, infection
etc. has to be given a total of 10% additional weightage.
5. Dominant upper limb has been given 4% extra percentage.

Upper Limb Amputation:
Sr. No Particulars of Amputation Permanent Partial

Impairment, in %
1 Forequarter 100
2 Shoulder Disarticulation 90
3 Above Elbow upto upper 1/3 of 85
arm
4 Above Elbow upto lower 1/3 of 80
arm
5 Elbow Disarticulation 75
6 Below Elbow upto upper 1/3 of 70
forearm
7 Below Elbow upto lower 1/3 of 65
forearm
8 Wrist Disarticulation 60
9 Hand through carpal bones 55
10 Thumb through C.M. or through 30
1st M.C. Joint
11 Thumb Disarticulation through 25
metacarpophalangeal joint or
through proximal phalanx
12 Thumb Disarticulation through 15
inter phalangeal joint or
through distal phalanx
Amputation of Finger:
Particulars IIndex Middl Ring Little

Finger e Finger Finger
Finger
Amputation through 115.00% 5.00% 3.00% 2.00%

proximal phalanx or
disarticulation through
MP joint
middle phalanx or
PIP joint
distal phalanx or
DIP joint
Lower Limb Amputations:
1. Hind quarter 100%
2. Hip disarticulation 90%
3. Above knee upto upper 1/3 of thigh 85%
4. Above knee upto lower 1/3 of thigh 80%
5. Through keen 75%
6. B.K. upto 8 cm 70%
7. B.K. upto lower 1/3 of leg 60%
8. Through ankle 55%
9. Syme's 50%
10. Upto midfoot 40%
11. Upto forefoot 30%
12. All toes 20%
13. Loss of first toe 10%
14. Loss of second toe 5%
15. Loss of third toe 4%
16. Loss of fourth toe 3%
17. Loss of fifth toe 2%

5.4 What should be the amount of compassion in the cases where
injured lost one of the limbs (amputation):
5.4.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Govind Yadav v/s
National Insurance Com. Ltd., reported in 2012 (1) TAC 1
(SC) = 2012 ACJ 28 (SC), M.D. Jacob v/s United India
Insurance Com. Ltd. 2014 ACJ 648 (SC) (FB) and Sanjay
Kumar v/s Ashok Kumar 2014 ACJ 653 (SC) has held that as
the cost of living and cost of artificial limb (prosthetic) has
substantially increased and, therefore, Rs.2,00,000/ to be
awarded under the said head. Rs.1,50,000/each to be
awarded under the heads of pain, shock & sufferings and
special diet, attendance & transportation and loss of amenities
and enjoyment of life, respectively. And if injured is unmarried
and his/her prospects for marriage have considerably reduced,
Rs.1,00,000/ may be awarded.
5.5 What should be the enhancement for future prospect in the

cases where injured suffered 100% functional disability:
In the case of Rajan v/s Soly Sebastian, reported in 2015
(10) SCC 506, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when a
professional like Driver suffers Permanent Partial Disability
(100% functional disability), 50% enhancement for future
prospect is required to be made.

5.5A Whether Dependants of the injured claimant who died his
natural death during the pendency of the claim petition are entitled
to get any amount of compensation:
5.5.1. Maxim “Actio Personalis MoriturcumPersona” is
applicable in such cases. Even provisions of Section 306 (along
with Illustrations) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 would
apply. In the cases of Pravabati Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Gautam Das
& Ors., reported in 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 15, relying on the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Melepurath Sankunni Ezuthassan v/s Thekittil Geopalankutty
Nair, reported in 1986 (1) SCC 118, and the case of M.
Veerappa v/s Evelyn Sequeria & Ors., reported in 1988 (1)
SCC 556, has held in paragraph 8 of the judgment thus:
“the right to sue will not survive in favour of his
representatives, for, in such an appeal, what the legal
representatives of such a claimant would be doing is to
ask for compensation and the right to ask for
compensation to be awarded does not survive if the
claimant dies before the claim for compensation is
awarded or decreed in his favour, the cause of death not
being the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant”.
5.5.2. From the above referred ratio it becomes clear that if
the claimant dies before the claim for compensation is
awarded or decreed in his favour is passed, claim petition at
the behest of the legal representative of the such injured
claimant is not maintainable.

5.5.3. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of
Jenabai wd/o Abdulkarim Musa v/s GSRTC, reported in 1991
GLR 352 and in the case of Surpalsing Gohil, reported in
2009(2) GLH 217 has taken a different view and has held that
Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and maxim Actio
personalis moritur cum persona is not applicable in its widest
sense in an accident causing injuries to a victim.
5.5.4. In the recent decision, Hon'ble Division Bench of High
Court, in the case of Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel v/s Joseph
Francis Mewan, reported in 2015 (2) GLH 499 has held that
in case where injured dies natural death, claim petition does
not abate and his/her L.R. can continue with the claim
petition but same shall be confined only so far as loss to estate
is concerned which includes personal expenses incurred on the
treatment by original claimant.
HOME

6.How to determine monthly income of the deceased or injured
when no document in support thereof is not produced:
6.1 In the case of Govind Yadav (supra), in para No.17 it has
been held that when there is no proof of income, income of the
deceased or injured claimant shall be decided by taking into
consideration prevalence minimum wages.
6.2 Several State Government have issued notifications of the
relating to Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as
'1948 Act'). Details of rates of minimum wages applicable in
the state of Gujarat form april 1992 to September, 2014 can be
availed from www.slideshare.net/mobile/hanifmulia/minimum-
wages-act-ratesapproved-by-government-government-of-
gujaratwef-april1992-to-september-2014.
HOME

7. How to determine income of the deceased or injured claimant
when there is documentary evidence on record to show that the
deceased or injured claimant was earning in foreign currency and
not in Indian Rupee:
7.1 Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of United India

Insurance Co. Ltd v/s S.Malarvizhi, in C.M.A. No.2623 of 2009,
decided on 6 June, 2013 has held that when the deceased or
injured claimant was getting salary in foreign currency, then in
such situation such foreign salary/income should be converted
into Indian Rupee, at the rates applicable at the time of
accident and deduction of higher percentage of 60% of the
income and low multiplier should be applied.
7.2 Reference may also be made to ratio laid down in the case
of In the case of United India Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Patricia
Jean Mahajan, reported in 2002 (6) SCC 281 = 2002 ACJ
1481= 2002 (4) Supreme 518. Said case before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court arose out of a claim made on behalf of the
Doctor of Indian origin who became the American citizen and
was killed in a road accident when he visited India. The claim
for compensation was based upon the income in the foreign
country and while considering the said case, among other
things, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the total
amount of compensation would work out to Rs.16.12 crores
with interest and looking to the Indian Economy, fiscal and
financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount

though in the background of American conditions it may not
be so. It was further held that when there is so much disparity
in the economic conditions and affluence of two places viz.
place to which the victim belong and the place at which the
compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck
somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair compensation.
Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too
overcompensated and similarly not very much under
compensated as well, in the background of the country where
most of the dependent beneficiaries reside.
7.3 In the recent ratio, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Chanderi devi v/s Jaspal Singh, reported in 2015 STPL(Web)
273 (SC) has held that: Deceased aged 32 years Employed as
an Indian Cook in Moghul Tandoor Restaurant in Germany –
He was drawing wages of 1145 Euro per month Taking the
income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.8,333/
per month by High Court held to be on the lower side –
Plausibly estimating as to how much a cook of similar nature
as the deceased would have earned in India in the year 2006, it
would be just and reasonable to ascertain the income of the
deceased at the time of his death at Rs.15,000/ per month –
By adding 50% of the actual salary as provision for future
prospects, the income of the deceased to be considered for
calculation of loss of dependency is Rs.22,500/ per month i.e.
Rs.2,70,000/ per annum – Deducting 10% towards income tax
the net income comes to Rs.2,43,000/ per annum – Further,

deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the
correct multiplier the loss of dependency would come to
Rs.25,92,000/ [(Rs.2,43,000/ () 1/3rd of Rs.2,43,000/) x
16] – Rs.1,00,000/ awarded towards loss of estate to the
appellant wife, Rs.25,000/ towards funeral expenses and
Rs.1,00,000/ towards loss of consortium to the appellantwife
– An amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded to the appellant
minor towards loss of love and affection of her
father(deceased) – Compensation enhance from
Rs.17,10,000/ to Rs. 29,17,000/ with interest @9% p.a. from
the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.
7.4 In the recent decision Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Chanderi Devi v/s Jaspal Singh, reported in 2015 ACJ 1612
has held that when in the cases where deceased was earning in
the foreign currency, income of such deceased persons can be
assessed by taking into consideration income of a person who
performs similar nature of work in India.
7.4.1. In fact in the above referred case before Hon'ble Apex
Court, deceased was working as Cook in the India
restaurant in Germany and was drawing monthly salary of
1,145 Euror (₹ 62,975 p/m). but Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered monthly income of deceased as ₹15,000/ p/m,
taking into consideration income of a cook of similar nature
in India.
HOME

8. How to decide a claim petition where defence of Invalid,
Learners Licence & Fake Driving Licence and Defense of
Qualification/Badge is taken:
8.1 Reference is required to be made to ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Com. Ltd.
V/s Swaran Singh, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531, in Para
No.105 it has been held as under:
105: The summary of our findings to the various issues as
raised in these petitions are as follows :
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing
compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is
a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation
to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The
provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles
are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act
have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition
filed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of
driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained
in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved
to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability
by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence
or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant

time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer
against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its
liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the
insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of
the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or
one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to
avoid their liability must not only establish the available
defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also
establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the
burden of proof wherefore would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said
burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the
part of the insured concerning the policy condition
regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his
qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer
would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured
unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of
driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have
contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in
interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of
main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to
allow defences available to the insured under Section

149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken
reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence
produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not
fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be
determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a
person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies
would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read
with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in
respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury
or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor
vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to
decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on
one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the
course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to
decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer,
the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to
decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The
decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se
between the insurer and insured in the course of
adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants
and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable
in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act
for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the

claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the
tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has
satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 149(2) read with subsection (7), as
interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that
the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the
compensation and other amounts which it has been
compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the
tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will
be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from
the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the
tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section
174 of the Act as arrears as land revenue. The certificate
will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue
only if, as required by subsection (3) of Section 168 of the
Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in
favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of
announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in subsection (4) with proviso
thereunder and subsection (5) which are intended to cover
specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the
insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of
insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of
by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of
insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy

before regular court in cases where on given facts and
circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might
delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims”.
8.2 Bare reading of above referred observations makes it
clear that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant
time, are not in themselves defences available to the
insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To
avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove
that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to
exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the
condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly
licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at
the relevant time. The insurance companies are, however,
with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish
the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but
must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the
vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them.
Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part
of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding
holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification
to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not
be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the
said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence
is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to

the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting
the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main
purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to
allow defences available to the insured under Section
149(2) of the Act. If a vehicle at the time of accident was
driven by a person having a learner's licence, the
insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
8.3 It is also held in Para 105 (ix) and (x) that Tribunal
is empowered to pass and order to “Pay and Recover”
against the insurer.
8.4 As far as, defence of insurer qua the

qualification/badge of the licence is concern, same can be
decided by relying upon para Nos.42, 43 & 84 of the
Swaran Singh's case. Paras 42, 43 & 84 reads as under:
“42. If a person has been given a licence for a particular
type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to
have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which
is of the same category but of different type. As for
example when a person is granted a licence for driving a
light motor vehicle he can drive either a car or a jeep and
it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both
for car and jeep separately.
43. Furthermore, the insurance company with a view to

avoid its liabilities is not only required to show that the
conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b) are
satisfied but is further required to establish that there has
been a breach on the part of the insured. By reason of the
provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a more extensive
remedy has been conferred upon those who have obtained
judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a
certificate of insurance is delivered in terms of Section
147(3) a third party has obtained a judgment against
any person insured by the policy in respect of a liability
required to be covered by Section 145, the same must be
satisfied by the insurer, notwithstanding that the insurer
may be entitled to avoid or to cancel the policy or may in
fact have done so. The same obligation applies in respect
of a judgment against a person not insured by the policy
in respect of such a liability, but who would have been
covered if the policy had covered the liability of all
persons, except that in respect of liability for death or
bodily injury.
84. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a
driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of
vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act
enables Central Government to prescribe forms of driving
licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in
subsection (2) of said section. The various types of
vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence

for one or more of them are: (a) Motorcycle without
gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d)
light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller,
and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The
definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various
categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types
mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 10. They are
'goods carriage', 'heavygoods vehicle', 'heavy passenger
motorvehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motorvehicle',
'maxicab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger
motorvehicle', 'motorcab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus',
'private service vehicle', 'semitrailer', 'tourist vehicle',
'tractor', 'trailer', and 'transport vehicle'. In claims for
compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches
with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for
consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a
driving licence for 'motorcycle without gear', for which he
has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of
driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be
driving a 'maxicab', 'motorcab' or 'omnibus' for which
he has no licence.In each case on evidence led before the
Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of
the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but
found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or
contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that
accident was caused solely because of some other

unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures
and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not
possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be
allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach
of conditions concerning driving licence”.
8.5 Meaning thereby, even if driver of offending vehicle was
not qualified to ply the offending vehicle or was not having the
required badge to ply such vehicle then also insurer is liable to
pay amount of compensation. Before passing any order,
Tribunal has to decide whether the fact of the driver possessing
licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type
of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If
on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of
some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical
failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver
not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be
allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of
conditions concerning driving licence.
8.6 Reference is also required to be made to the recent

decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Iyyapan v/s
United India Insurance Com. Ltd., dated 01.07.2013. Wherein,
after referring several ratios of Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been
held in Para No.19 that:
“In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding

a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is
no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which
accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely
because the driver did not get any endorsement in the
driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light
motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of
law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay
compensation because the driver was not holding the licence
to drivethe commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is,
therefore, liableto be set aside”.
8.7 Even in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.

Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2266,
it has been held that when driver of offending vehicle was
holder of licence of three wheeler i.e. auto rickshaw delivery
van and his licence was not meant for driving 'transport
vehicle' but for goods carrying public carrier, in such case
Insurer is not liable but directed the insurer to first pay entire
amount of compensation with a further direction to recover
the same from the insured (these directions were issued under
Article 142 of Constitution of India).
HOME

9. In which circumstances, Insurer is liable to pay compensation
when injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods
vehicle:
9.1 It is the duty of the insurer to prove that injured claimant
or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle and, therefore,
it is not liable to pay amount of compensation, unless, same
has been prove, insurer is liable to pay amount of
compensation.
9.2 To decide whether, injured claimant or deceased was

travelling in the goods vehicle or not, Panchnama of scene of
accident plays very vital role. If, after reading Panchnama, it
appears that there were goods loaded in the vehicle or were
found lying at the sight of accident then it can be presumed
that vehicle was used for carrying goods. However, there are
some points, which are required to be considered before
fastening liability on insurer, which are:
9.2.1 Whether injured claimant or deceased was

travelling in the cabin of the goods vehicle or not. If,
injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the cabin
of the goods, insurer is liable otherwise not. Reference be
made to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Cholleti
Bharatamma, reported in AIR 2008 SC 484.

9.2.2 Whether the insurer is liable in a case where the injured
claimant or deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the
labourer of the owner or the hirer:
9.2.2.1. If it is proved that injured claimant or deceased
was travelling in the goods vehicle as the labourer of the
owner of the goods then insurer is liable to pay amount
of compensation, provided additional premium of
labourer/collie is paid by the owner but insurer is not
liable in the such cases where injured claimant or
deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the
labourer of the hirer. Reference be made to the ratio laid
down in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v/s National
Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in AIR 2013 SCW 301,
wherein it is held that:
“the Act policy does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus,
on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic
analysis of the Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 it is quite limpid that the statutory policy only covers
the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged
by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other
kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not
being an authorized agent in place of the owner of goods,
and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods,
cannot be covered by the statutory policy”.

9.3 Whether insurer is liable in the case where injured claimant or
deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner or
representative of the goods:
9.3.1. If it is proved that the injured claimant or deceased
was travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner or
representative of the goods, insurer is liable to pay amount of
compensation otherwise not. Reference be made to ratio laid
own in the case of New India Insurance Company v/s
Darshana Devi, reported in AIR 2008 (Supp) SC 1639.
9.4 Whether injured claimant or deceased was travelling in

Tractor/trolley is entitled to get amount of compensation:
9.4.1 Normally, Tractortrailer/trolley is used for

agricultural purpose and if it found that same was used for
agricultural purpose and same is covered by the 'Farmer
Comprehensive Policy' or the 'Farmer Package Policy', in
such situation, insurer is liable to pay compensation. If the
above referred two conditions are not fulfilled, insurer can not
be held responsible to pay amount of compensation.
9.4.2 It is also to be noted that in the Annexure of Indian

Motor Tariff, list of Miscellaneous and Special types of vehicles
is given. As per the said list tractors can be used for
Agricultural and if Trolley is attached to such Tractor, same
may be used for carrying goods. As per the said list there is

one another kind of Tractor, which is 'Traction Engine Tractor'.
If is found that tractor is not used for the purpose of
agricultural work and if it used for carrying goods, such
tractortrolley must be insured for such purpose and if is not
insured as such, insurer is not liable to pay any amount of
compensation.
9.5 It to be noted that when insurance policy contains

'Avoidance Clause', then in such situation, insurer is liable to
pay compensation under the principle of 'Pay and Recover'.
Reference may be made to the ratio laid down in the case of
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal, Devi, reported in 2010
ACJ 2878 and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shantaben Vankar
v/s Yakubbhai Patel, reported in 2012 ACJ 2715.
9.6. The issue with respect to whether Tribunal has

jurisdiction to pass an order of 'Pay and Recover' was referred
to the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court. Reference be made to
judgment delivered in the case of National Insurance com. Ltd.
v/s Parvathneni, reported in 2009 (3) GLH 377 (SC).
9.6.1 Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the said SLP being
No.22444 of 2009 on 17/09/2013 (from the judgment and
order dated 12/12/2008 in MACMA No.1211 of 2007 of the
High Court of A.P. at Hyderabadon 18/09/2013).
HOME

10. Liability of insurer to pay compensation in the cases where
injured claimant or deceased was travelling in the private car as
occupants or travelling on two wheeler as pillion rider:
10.1. In the recent decision, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, reported in
AIR 2013 SC 473 has held in para No.21 that:
“comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of
the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in
a car. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy" stands on a
different footing from a "Comprehensive/Package Policy". As
the circulars have made the position very clear and the
IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has
commanded the insurance companies stating that a
"Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers the liability, there
cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to
clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in
respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a
third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is
a "Comprehensive/Package Policy", the liability would be
covered”.
10.1.1. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra), occupant of
private car or the pillion rider of two wheeler is entitled to
recover amount of compensation from insurer, provided the
offending vehicle is covered with the 'Comprehensive/

Package Policy'. Reference may also be made to ratio laid
down in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Surendra Nath Loomba, reported in AIR 2013 SC 483.
HOME

11. How to decide a claim petition preferred under section 163A of
the Act:
11.1. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Deepal Girishbhai
Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda

(2004) 5 SCC 385 = AIR 2004 SC 2107, Hon'ble Full Bench of
Apex Court has held that claim petition preferred u/s 163A is
under 'No Fault Liability'. Whereas, in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha, reported in AIR 2012 SC
797, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that claim petition
preferred u/s 163A is under 'Fault Liability'.
11.2. It does not become clear from the facts of the of Deepal

Girishbhai Soni's (supra) case as to whether, more than one
vehicles were involved in the said accident or not but from the
reading of the Sinitha's (supra) case, it becomes clear that
there was only one vehicle involved and question which was
required to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as to whether,
insurer has succeeded in proving that claimant himself was
negligent in causing the accident or not.

11.3. From the reading of both the above referred ratios, it
appears that there are conflicting views and, therefore, each
claim petition may be decided on the basis of it's facts. That is
to say, if only one vehicle is involved, point of negligence must
be decided.

11.4. The ratio laid down in the case of Sinitha (supra) is referred
to the Full Bench for consideration. Please refer to United India
Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s Sunil Kumar, reported in 2013 ACJ
2856 (SC).
11.5. It is to be noted that in a claim petition, preferred u/s 163A
of the Act, income of the injured claimant or the deceased
should not be more that Rs.40,000/ per annum. If, the income
of the injured claimant or the deceased is more that
Rs.40,000/ per annum, in such cases, claimant/s may be given
an option to convert the same under Section 166 of the Act. If
claim petition is not converted, even after the order/direction,
same be dismissed. In this regards reference many be made to
ratio laid down in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra).
11.6. It also required to be noted that in the Fatal injury cases,
multiplier cannot be applied as same is applied only in the
cases where claim petition is preferred by the injured.
Reference be made to ratio laid down in the case of National
Company Ltd. Versus Gurumallamma, reported in AIR 2009
SCW 7434, para No.8. Similar kind of observations are made
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), at
Para No.17 (page No.3112 in AIR), which reads under:
“... Therefore, where the application is under section 163A of
the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the

structured formula basis, even where compensation is not
specified with reference to the annual income of the
deceased, or is more than Rs. 40,000/ by applying the
formula : (2/3 x A1 x M), that is twothirds of the annual
income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age
of the deceased would be the compensation”.
11.7 From the above referred ratios, laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court, it becomes amply clear that Tribunal is not
required to make calculation of compensation on the basis
of application of multiplier. But Tribunal is only required to
grant compensation as per ScheduleII of the Motor Vehicle
Act, taking into considering the age and income of the
deceased and figure shown against the age and income of
the deceased. For an example, if, monthly income of the
deceased who was aged about 48 years at the time of
accident, is assessed as Rs.2,500/ per month (Rs.30,000/
per annum), how the compensation should be calculated.
Since Rs.30,000/ per annum is not shown anywhere in
column of “ANNUAL INCOME” of the Second Schedule of
the Act, now, the question, is how the amount of
compensation to be calculated. In such cases, average of
figures in the income group of Rs.24,000/ per annum and
Rs.36,000/ per annum i.e Rs.2,86,000/ and Rs.4,32,000,
respectively are required to be taken into consideration.
Average of Rs.2,86,000/ and Rs.4,32,000, comes to
Rs.3,59,000. Out of the said amount of 3,59,000, 1/3 is
required to be deducted in consideration of expenses
incurred by deceased towards maintaining himself and,
therefore, net amount of future income loss comes to
approximately Rs.2,40,000/. [Reference: National
Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s P.C. Chacko, reported in 2012 ACJ
1065 (Devision Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court,
Ernakulan Bench)]
11.7. 1. It is to be remembered that in every claim petition
preferred u/s 163A of the Act, whether the deceased is
married or not, unlike as claim petition preferred u/s 166
of the Act, onethird (1/3rd) amount from the actual income
of the deceased should be deducted towards personal and
living expenditures of the deceased.
11.8. Over and above the future income loss, claimant/s is/are

entitled to such amount, specified under the Second Schedule
of the Act. However, in the case of Sapan v/s United India
Insurance Com. Ltd., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2281, held that
when claim petition preferred u/s 163A and claimant would
remain crippled throughout life and would have no enjoyment
for life, Tribunal can award further sum of Rs. 75,000/ for
future medical treatment.
11.9. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Rajni
Devi, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has

categorically held that in a case where third party is involved,
the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It

was also held in the said decision that where, however,
compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another
passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being
governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the
claimant against the insurance company would depend upon
the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section
163A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in
respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle
himself is involved. The decision further held that the question
is no longer res integra. The liability under Section 163A of
the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be
both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim.
Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained
a claim in terms of Section 163A of the MVA. Above referred
ratio is applicable in the case where the deceased/injured not
being the owner of the vehicle and if he borrows the such
vehicle from its real owner, in such case the deceased cannot
be held to be employee of the owner of the vehicle although he
is authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and
therefore, under such circumstances, he steps into the shoes of
the owner of the vehicle. Similar views are taken in by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi (2009) 2 SCC 417 and Ningamma v/s
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2009 SC
3056.
HOME

12. What if the cheque given for payment of premium of insurance
policy is dishonoured:
12.1. Reference may be made to the ratios laid down in the cases
of Deddappa v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd., reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 595 = AIR 2008 SC 767 = 2007 AIR SCW 7948
and United India Insurance Com. Ltd v/s Laxmamma, reported
in 2012 ACJ 1307 (SC). In both these judgments, it has been
held that when cheque given for payment of premium of
policy, is dishonoured and on that count Insurance Company
cancels the policy by intimating the insured of such dishonour
of cheque before the date of accident, then in such situation
Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay amount of
compensation but if insurer fails to intimate the insured about
such dishonour and cancellation of policy before the date of
accident, then in such situation insurer is held liable to pay
amount of compensation and Insurance Company may
prosecute its remedy to recover the amount paid to the
claimants from the insurer.
HOME

13. What is the meaning of “Arising out of use of Motor Vehicle”:
13.1. Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'arising out of
the use of motor vehicle' and not 'connected with the use of
motor vehicle' under Sections 140, 163A and 166 of the Act
and, therefore, there must be more direct and pronounced
linkage or nexus between the use of motor vehicle and the
accident which has resulted. A mere casual connection is not
sufficient.
13.2. To decide the such issue one may advantageously refer to
the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court, reported as
Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991)
3 SCC 530 = AIR 1991 Sc 1769. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex
Court considered at length, the questions whether the fire and
explosion of the petrol tanker in which deceased lost his life
could be said to have resulted from an accident arising out of
the use of a motor vehicle, namely the petrol tanker. The court
answered the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in
favour of the claimant and against the insurance company.
13.3. It is true that the case Shivaji Dayanu Patil (supra) arose
from the claim for nofault compensation under section 92A of
the 1939 Act (u/s 163A of the New Act). All the material facts
were considered at length by Hon'ble Apex Court in above
referred case and, therefore, said principle is also applicable in
the claim petition preferred u/s 166 of the Act.

13.4. Ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji
Dayanu Patil (supra) is also relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court
in several decisions, namely, Samir Chanda, v/s Managing
Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, reported in AIR
1999 SC 136 and Smt. Rita Devi v/s New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930 and New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Yadu Sambhaji More, reported in AIR 2011 SC 666.
HOME

1 4. Whether Finance Company, which has advanced loan for the
purpose of purchase of vehicle under the 'Hire Purchase Agreement'
or on Hypothecation can be said to be the owner of the Vehicle:
14.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godavari Finance v/s
Degala Satyanarayananamma, reported in 2008 ACJ 1612 has
held in para 13 as under:
“13. In case of a motor vehicle which is subjected to a Hire
Purchase Agreement, the financier cannot ordinarily be
treated to be the owner. The person who is in possession of
the vehicle, and not the financier being the owner would be
liable to pay damages for the motor accident”.
14.2. Reference may also be made ratio laid down in the case of
Anup Sarmah v/s Bhola Nath Sharma, reported in IV (2012)
CPJ 3 (SC), para No.8 & 9.
14.3. Reference may also be made ratio laid down in the case of
HDFC Bank v/s Resham (FB) 2015 ACJ 1 (SC).
14.4. In the recent decision Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Central bank of India v/s Jagbir Singh, reported in 2015 ACJ
1513 has held that liability of Financier/bank to get vehicle
insured is only till vehicle comes out on the road and
Financier/bank is not liable to get the insurance policy
renewed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle from time to
time.
15. When an accident, involving two vehicles and driver of one of
the unknown vehicle sped away after the accident, whether in such
situation, claim petition is maintainable against the other
tortfeasor, in view of the provisions contained under Sections
15.1. Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in First

Appeal No.3354 of 2000 with Civil Application No.746 of 2005
dated 13.7.2005 has held in such situation claim petition is not
maintainable. But Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of
Bhanuben P. Joshi V/s. Kantilal B. Parmar, reported in 1994
ACJ 714 (DB) has held otherwise. Facts of the Bhanuben P.
Joshi (supra) as under:
15.1.1. In the said case accident occurred because one

unknown truck dashed the motor cycle from behind and
after the accident, truck driver sped away with the truck
and remained unidentified and pillion rider sustained fatal
injuries. Claimants of the said claim petition averred that
motor cycle was being driven by its rider at excessive speed
and in rash and negligent manner. Tribunal dismissed the
claim petition by holding that there was no rashness on the
part of the motor cyclist. After noting the said facts Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court has observed that motor cycle was being
driven in rash and negligent manner and in flagrant
violation of traffic rules and regulations and finally reversed
the finding of Tribunal.

15.1.2. It is also held in para No.9 of the above referred ratio,
namely Bhanuben P. Joshi (supra) that victims of road
accident are entitled to claim compensation from all or any
of the joint tortfeasors, it would not be necessary to
apportion the extent of contribution of each driver of
happening of unfortunate accident.

15.2. From the above referred ratios it becomes clear that even if
driver and owner of the unknown vehicle is not joined as
parties opponents, claim petition is maintainable against any
one of the tortfeasors.
15.3. The other issue is whether in a Hit and Run case, claimant
can claim fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/ u/s 140 the M.V.
Act when claimant has not filed an application under the
scheme framed u/s 161 of the M.V. Act. In A. Prakash v/s
General Manager, reported in 2015 ACJ 203 (AP), it is held
that claimant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/ u/s 140 of the M.V.
Act.
HOME

16. Whether all the joint tortfeasors are required to be joined as
party opponents in the claim petition:
16.1. Hon'ble Gujarat Court in the case of O.I.Com.Ltd. v/s
Zubedaben Pathan, in F.A. No.651 of 2012 and judgment
dated 18.02.2010, delivered by Hon'ble Kerala Court in the
case of U.I.Com.Ltd. v/s Mariamma George, in M.A.C.A.
No.744 of 2005 have held that the claimant/s is/are not
entitled to recover amount of compensation, jointly and
severally from the insurance company/companies, if all the
tortfeasors are not joined.
16.2. But Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amarsing

Jugabhai v/s Vijyaben Dhuliya, reported in 1996(3) GLR 493
has held in para No.23 that:
“Where a person is injured in a motor accident which occurs
not on account of his negligence, but because the drivers of
collided vehicles were negligent, the claimants are entitled to
damage jointly and severally from the negligent
respondents. Every wrongdoer is liable for the whole
damage and it does not matter whether they acted between
themselves as equals. A decree passed against two or more
tortfeasors can be executed against any one of the
defendants and such defendant can be compelled to pay the
entire amount of damages decreed. It is further clear that
the defendant who is compelled to pay the entire amount of
damages decreed has a right to contribution from the other

wrongdoer. The liability in the case of composite negligence,
unless must normally should not be apportioned because the
claimant is able to recover the whole amount of
compensation from owner or driver of either vehicles. In
case of composite negligence, liability for compensation in
normal circumstances, should not be apportioned, as both
wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable for the whole
loss. Rule of apportionment of liability applies in a case of
contributory negligence, i.e., where the injured himself is
also guilty of negligence.”
16.3. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kusumben

Vipinchandra Shah v. Arvindbhai Narmadashankar Raval,
reported in AIR 2007 Guj. 121. Wherein it is held that:
“As held in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v.
Gurunath Shahu (supra), the finding given by the Tribunal
in such a case regarding apportionment of liability would be
tentative for the purpose of subsequent proceeding which
might be filed by the defendant tortfeasor against the other
joint tortfeasor who was not a party to the first proceeding.
But such tentativeness for the purpose of contribution
between two joint tortfeasors did not at all affect the right of
the plaintiffclaimant to recover full damages from the
defendant tortfeasor against whom the first proceeding was
filed”.

16.4. In the recent decisions, in the cases of Oriental Insurance
v/s Meena Variyal, reported in 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC), Pawan
Kumar v/s Harkishan Dass Mohan, reported in 2014 ACJ 704
(SC) (FB), Hon'ble Apex Court has taken the view that where a
person is injured/expired in a motor accident which occurs not
on account of his negligence, but because the drivers of
collided vehicles were negligent, the claimants are entitled to
damage jointly and severally from the negligent respondents
and such claimants are not required to join all tortfeasors as
party. From the above referred ratios it becomes clear that
claimant/s is/are not required to join all the tortfeasors as
party opponent/s.
16.5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of khenyei v/s New India
Assurance Com. Ltd, reported in 2015 ACJ 1441 has laid down
following guidelines in the cases composite negligence and
appoortionment of inter se liabilitty of joint tortfeasors.
(i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is

entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to
recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors
is joint and several.
(ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of

compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his
option whole damages from any of them.
(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and
evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to
determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the
drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence
between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their
inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the
other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant
to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case
both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/
extent of their negligence has been determined by the
court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover
the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.
(iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to

determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of
two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort
feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be
left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in
independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.
HOME

17. Whether the point of negligence and liability of insurer, decided
by the coordinate Tribunal is binding on the other coordinate
Tribunal, if the claim petition has arisen from the same accident:
17.1. Hon'ble the Privy Council in its decision rendered in the
case of Syed Mohamamd Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali
Beg, reported in AIR (30) 1943 PC 115 has observed as
under :
"In order that a decision should operate as res judicata
between codefendants, three conditions must exist : (1)
There must be a conflict of interest between those co
defendants, (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in
order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (3) the
question between the codefendants must have been finally
decided."
17.2. Thus, the Privy Council has laid down that if the aforesaid
three conditions stand satisfied, res judicata can operate

between the codefendants also. Said principle is also followed
by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of United India
Insurance Com. ltd. v/s. Laljibhai Hamirbhai, reported in 2007
(1) GLR 633.
HOME

18. Whether a claim petition preferred by the a claimant (also the
owner of the offending vehicle, without involving another vehicle)
alleging therein that accident occurred because of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle owned by h
18.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dhanraj v/s N.I.A.Com.
Ltd., reported in 2005 ACJ No.1, Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd.
v/s Jhuma Saha, reported in 2007 ACJ 818 and N.I.A. Com.
Ltd. v/s Meera Bai, reported in 2007 ACJ 821 has interpreted
Section 147 and it has been held that Section 147 does not
require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or
bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
18.2. To decide such point, fact of each case is required to be
taken into consideration. Facts of Dhanraj (supra) are:
Appellant (owner of jeep) along with certain other persons
were travelling in his own Jeep and said Jeep met with an
accident. In the accident, the Appellant as well as other
passengers received injuries. In the claims petitions, Tribunal
held the Driver of the Jeep responsible for the accident. In all
the Claim Petitions filed by the other passengers, Tribunal
directed that the Appellant (as the owner) as well as the Driver
and Insurance Company were liable to pay compensation. In
the Claim Petition filed by the appellantowner of the jeep, the
Tribunal directed the Driver and the Insurance Company to
pay compensation to the appellant. Insurance Company filed
an Appeal before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court.
That Appeal was allowed and held that as the appellant was
the owner of the jeep and, therefore, the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay him any compensation. Against the said order
of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, appeal was preferred
by appellantowner. In the said appeal, after incorporating
Section 147 of the Act, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
comprehensive policy covers the liability incurred by the
insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person
(including an owner of the goods or his authorized
representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any
property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of
the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an Insurance
Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the
owner of the vehicle.
18.3. Relying upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi
and Ors. 1998 ACJ 121, it is further held in para No.9 that the
liability of an Insurance Company is only for the purpose of
indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards
third person or in respect of damages to property.
18.4. Thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no
liability to a third party the Insurance Company has no liability
also.
18.5. From the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Dhanraj (supra), it becomes amply clear that comprehensive

policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of
death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of
the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the
vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or
arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not
require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or
bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
HOME

19. What is the meaning of “Public Place”, as defined u/s 2(34) of
the Act:
19.1. Definition of 'Public Place', reads as under:
"2(34) "Public place" means, a road, street, way or
other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to
which the public have a right of access, and
includes any place or stand at which passengers are
picked up or set down by a stage carriage."
19.2. The definition of 'public place' under the M. V. Act is,

therefore, wide enough to include any place which members of
public use and to which they have a right of access. The right
of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by
oral or written permission, by tickets, passes or badges or on
payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to
particular purpose or purposes. What is necessary is that the
place must be accessible to the members of public and be
available for their use, enjoyment, avocation or other purpose.
19.3. Vary question came up for consideration before the Full

Bench of Bombay High Court in Pandurang Chimaji Agale and
another v. New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune and others,
AIR 1988 Bom 248, wherein the Hon'ble Court after taking
note of the divergent views of different High Courts with
regard to the meaning and import of the term 'public place', as
defined under Section 2(24) of the 1939 Act (corresponding to

Section 2(34) of the M. V. Act), proceeded to hold that for the
purpose of Chapter VIII of the said Act, the expression 'public
place' will cover all places including those of private ownership
where members of the public have an access whether free or
controlled in any manner whatsoever.
19.4. Relying on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High

Court (cited supra), a Full Bench of Madras High Court in the
case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathi Devi and
others, 1999 ACJ 1520 (Madras) has held as follows:
"16. The definition of 'public place' is very wide. A perusal of the
same reveals that the public at large has a right to access
though that right is regulated or restricted. It is also seen
that this Act is beneficial legislation, so also the law of
interpretation has to be construed in the benefit of public. In
the overall legal position and the fact that if the language is
simple and unambiguous, it has to be construed in the
benefit of the public, we are of the view that the word 'public
place' wherever used as a right or controlled in any manner
whatsoever, would attract section 2(24) of the Act. In view
of this, as stated, the private place used with permission or
without permission would amount to be a 'public place'”.
19.5. Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case
of Rajan v. John, 2009 (2) TAC 260 (Ker) : (AIR 2009 Ker
136), the Hon'ble Court while considering the definition of

'public place' for the purpose of Section 2(34) of the Act,
proceeded to hold that the term 'public place' cannot be given
a restricted meaning in as much as, it is not to be taken as a
place where public have uncontrolled access at all times.
'Public place' for the purpose of the Act has to be understood
with reference to the places to which a vehicle has access.
Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court proceeded to hold that the
private premises of a house where goods vehicle is allowed
entry, is a 'public place' for the purpose of Section 2(34) of the
Act and therefore the insurer is liable to pay the
compensatioon.
19.6. From the above referred ratios, it becomes clear that in any
private premises, where goods vehicle is allowed entry, is a
'public place' for the purpose of Section 2(34) of the Act.
HOME

20. What if, the vehicle which met with an accident was sold of by
its registered owner before the date of accident and name of the
transferee owner (purchaser) is not entered into the R.C. Book:
20.1. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and Hon'ble Kerala
High Court, in the cases reported in 2011 ACJ 577 & 1997 ACJ
260, respectively, it has been held that when registered owner
denies his liability to pay amount of compensation on the
ground that he had sold the vehicle in question and received
the consideration thereof and handed over the possession of
the vehicle along with R.C. Book and relevant transfer Forms
for getting the vehicle transferred in the name of transferee
much prior to the accident, then in that circumstances
transferee owner cannot be allowed to evade his liability to
pay amount of compensation on the ground that he is not
registered owner.
20.2. But Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa alias Leela
v/s. Shakuntala, reported in 2011 ACJ 705(SC) = AIR 2011
SC 682 in the above referred judgment Hon'bel Apex Court, in
paragraphs Nos.12 to 16 has held as under:
“12. The question of the liability of the recorded owner of a
vehicle after its sale to another person was considered by this
Court in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748 :
(AIR 2001 SC 3939). In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
decision, the Court observed and held as follows:
"9. Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submitted that the
High Court was wrong in ignoring the oral evidence on
record. He submitted that the oral evidence clearly showed
that the Appellant was not the owner of the car on the date
of the accident. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely because the
name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. did not
mean that the ownership of the vehicle had not been
transferred. Mr. Iyer submitted that the real owner of the car
was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy
Thomas had been made partyRespondent No.9 to these
Appeals. He pointed out that an Advocate had filed
appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy Thomas but had then
applied for and was permitted to withdraw the appearance.
He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had been duly served
and a public notice had also been issued. He pointed out that
Mr. Roy Thomas had chosen not to appear in these Appeals.
He submitted that the liability, if any, was of Mr. Roy
Thomas.
10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not
right in holding that the Appellant continued to be the
owner as the name had not been changed in the records of
R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of
consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record
shows that ownership of the car had been transferred.
However the Appellant still continued to remain liable to
third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O.
as. the owner. The Appellant could not escape that liability
by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these Appeals. Mr. Roy

Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High
Court. In these Appeals we cannot and will not go into the
question of inter se liability between the Appellant and Mr.
Roy Thomas. It will be for the Appellant to adopt
appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law,
he is entitled to do so."
(Emphasis added)
13. Again, in P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan and Ors.,
(2008) 17 SCC 624, this Court examined the same issue
under somewhat similar set of facts as in the present case. In
paragraph 4 of the decision, this Court observed and held as
follows:
"4. These appeals are filed by the appellants. The Insurance
Company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question
before this Court is whether by reason of the fact that the
vehicle has been transferred to Respondent 4 and thereafter
to Respondent 5, the appellant got absolved from liability to
the third person who was injured. This question has been
answered by this Court in T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M.
(reported in 2001 (8) SCC 748) wherein it is held that even
though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the
vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose
name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a
third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed
therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not
mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a

third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records,
he remains liable to a third person."
(Emphasis added)
14. The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to the
provisions of section 2(30) and section 50 of the Act, as
noted above, the ratio of the decision shall apply with equal
force to the facts of the case arising under the 1988 Act.On
the basis of these decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that
Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the
registering authority as the owner of the truck was equally
liable for payment of the compensation amount. Further,
since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken
out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be
shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
15. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted
that even though the registered owner of the vehicle was
Jitender Gupta, after the sale of the truck he had no control
over it and the possession and control of the truck were in
the hands of the transferee, Salig Ram. No liability can,
therefore, be fastened on Jitender Gupta, the transferor of
the truck. In support of this submission he relied upon a
decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Deepa Devi and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 414 : (AIR 2008 SC
735). The facts of the case in Deepa Devi are entirely
different. In that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the

District Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred upon
him under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In
that circumstance, this Court observed that the owner of the
vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of
the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle
remained under requisition, the owner did not exercise any
control over it: the driver might still be the employee of the
owner of the vehicle but he had to drive the vehicle according
to the direction of the officer of the State, in whose charge
the vehicle was given. Save and except the legal ownership,
the registered owner of the vehicle had lost all control over
the vehicle. The decision in Deepa Devi was rendered on the
special facts of that case and it has no application to the
facts of the case in hand.
16. In light of the discussion made above it is held that the
compensation amount is equally realisable from respondent
No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it is directed to
make full payment of the compensation amount as
determined by the Claims Tribunal to the appellants within
two months from the date of this judgment”.
20.3. From the above referred ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court, it
becomes clear that, as on the date of accident, transferor

owner was the registered owner of offending vehicle, he must
be deemed to continue as owner of the offending vehicle for

the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, even though under the
Civil Law, he ceased to be its owner after its sale and
Transferor Owner and Transferee Owner (both) are equally
liable to pay the amount of compensation in favour of the
claimant.
HOME

21. Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for want of
prosecution or nonappearance of the claimant and/or his
Advocate:
21.1. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatbhai
Narsingbhai Chaudhry v/s Malek Rafik Malek Himantbhai
Malek, reported in 2012 ACJ 1262 = AIR 2011 Gujarat 150
has held in Para No.5.14 and 6.1 that Claims Tribunals are not
empowered to dismiss claim application for default of claimant
after framing of issues. It is further held that Tribunals are
required to decide claim petitions on merits with a view to
provide substantial justice to the victim of accident, keeping in
mind the object of benevolent legislation, instead of entering
into niceties and technicalities.
21.2. However, Full Benches of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the
case of Jacob Thomas v. C. Pandian, reported in AIR 2006
Kerala 77 and Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of
Mohammad Yousuf Wani v/s Abdul Rehman Gujri, reported in
AIR 1982 Kerala 146 have taken a view that when O. 9 of CPC
is specifically made applicable to proceedings before claims
Tribunal, it cannot be said that Tribunal has no power to
dismiss application for default when the case is posted for
hearing if claimant is absent and respondents are present. But,
S. 168 did not insist that in all cases award should be passed
but only directed that Tribunal "may make an award", once it
makes a judgement or award, mandates of Rules framed under
the Act has to be complied with.

HOME
22. Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for non production
of documents mentioned under Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor
Vehicles Rules,1989:
22.1. There is no judgment on this point but Rule 211, subrule 5
provides that: with all claim petition, preferred u/s 166 of the
Act, FIR, Injury Certificate or Postmortem Report and details of
owner and insurance policy of offending vehicle, supplied
either by police or regional transport authority should be
furnished.
22.1.1. Above referred provisions are mandatory provision

and deviation therefrom, would lead to dismissal of the
claim petition. However, it is to be noted that along with
claim petition, original documents are not required to be
furnished and only photo copy of such documents will do.
Original documents may be produced when the stage of
evidence comes.
HOME

23. How
to decide a claim petition, where insurer has taken a
defence of violation of 'Permit':
23.1. In some claim petitions, insurer takes defence of violation
and/or breach of 'Permit'. To understand legal position, some
examples with the case law are required to be taken into
consideration. Some examples and findings of the Hon'ble
High Courts are as under:
1. Insurer seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that

offending vehicle was being plied without valid permit. It
has come on record that insurer had insured the said vehicle
without there being valid permit. Therefore, it is held that it
is the duty of Insurer to verify the fact that permit of vehicle
was valid or not at the time of insuring the vehicle and, as
insurer having insured the vehicle without valid permit, it
cannot seek exemption from liability. This has been held by
Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of U.I.I.Com.
v/s Prakashi Devi, reported in 2011 ACJ 1683.
2. Insurer seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that owner
of ‘Taxi’, which hit the pedestrians had violated terms of
policy, as ‘Taxi’ could not have been used in a public place
after expiry of permit. It has come on record that policy was
valid. Even it was not the case of Insurer that passengers
were being carried for hire and reward and policy did not
cover the case of Third Party. It was therefore, held that

victim did not suffer injuries while travelling in the ‘Taxi’ for
hire or reward and mere expiry of permit would not absolve
Insurer to pay compensation, as no provision of the Act is
shown by Insurer to point out that owner of ‘Taxi’ was
under legal obligation, not to ply ‘Taxi’ after the expiry of
permit. This has been held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in
the case of Sethunath v/s John Varghese, reported in 2011
ACJ 2242.
3. Truck was loaded with coal and carrying 12 passengers,

capsized. Truck was insured covering driver, cleaner and 6
coolies. Insurer contended that truck was over loaded as it
was carrying more that 8 persons and further contended
that there is breach of policy. It is held that Insurer has
failed to show that carrying more number of coolies would
be treated as breach of policy and, it has been further held
that if at all there is any breach of policy, it is not so
fundamental as to put end to the contract totally. Finally
Insurer was directed to satisfy the highest six awards of
coolies. This has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court
in the case of Sanjay v/s Sukhiyabai, reported in 2012 ACJ
287.
4. Truck hit a person standing on roadside and he sustained
grievous injuries. Tribunal found that Truck was being plied
without valid permit and owner of the Truck has committed

breach of the terms and condition of policy. After holding
this, Tribunal directed insurer to pay compensation and
then recover from the owner. This award of Tribunal was
challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble High
Court, after relying upon the several Judgments of Hon'ble
Apex Court, has held that award of Tribunal is just and
proper and directions of Tribunal against insurer to 'pay and
recover' is just and proper. This has been held by Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court (DB) in the case of N.I. Com. v/s
Radhey Shyam, reported in 2013 ACJ 788.
5. Mini bus being plied on the route for which it had no
permit. It is also found that in the said bus 13 passengers
travelling against the permit of 12 passengers. Held that
there is violation of insurance policy and Insurer held not
responsible but order of 'pay and recover' is passed. This has
been held by Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the
case of N.I. Com. v/s Balbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ
1008.
23.2 The interpretation of contravention of condition of permit
envisaged under Section 66 of the M.V. Act and the

contravention of condition/s of permit came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Maharastra v/s Nanden parrebhani, reported in (2000) 2 SCC
69, albeit in a different context. In the said case, the police had
seized certain vehicles for carrying passengers in excess of the
numbers permitted by the condition of permit issued by the
Transport Authority. The action was challenged by the
Association of Transporters by virtue of a writ petition before
the Hon'ble Aurangabad Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
The Hon'ble High Court analyzed the different provisions of
the M. V. Act, and the Rules framed thereunder and on
consideration of the same came to the conclusion that it is not
each and every violation of the condition of the permit which
would authorize the seizure and detention of the vehicle under
Section 207 (1) of the M.V. Act. It was held that it was only
when the condition of permit relating to the route on which or
the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle was
used, is violated, the vehicle could be seized by the Authorities.
The Appeal filed by the State of Maharastra was dismissed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention raised on behalf of
the State of Maharastra that carrying passengers more than
prescribed by the permit could be construed to be violation,
was rejected. The Supreme Court relied upon the report in
Kanailal Sur v/s Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan, reported in (1958) 1
SCR 360 and held as under:
"If the words used are capable of one construction only then it
would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other
hypothetical construction on the ground that such
construction is more consistent with the alleged object and
policy of the Act. The intention of the legislature is required to
be gathered from the language used and, therefore, a

construction, which requires for its support with additional
substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as
meaningless has to be avoided. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid
principles of construction of statute and on examining the
provisions of Section 207 of the M.V. Act, which has been
quoted earlier, we have no doubt in our mind that the police
officer would be authorised to detain a vehicle, if he has
reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used in
contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or
without the permit required under Subsection (1) of Section
66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit
relating to the route on which or the area in which or the
purpose for which the vehicle may be used. In the case in
hand, we are not concerned with the contravention of Section
3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or Subsection (1) of Section 66
and we are only concerned with the question of contravention
of the condition of permit. Reading the provisions as it is, the
conclusion is irresistible that the condition of permit relating
to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for
which the vehicle could be used if contravened, would only
authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle and not each
and every condition of permit on being violated or
contravened, the police officer would be entitled to detain the
vehicle. According to the learned Counsel, appearing for the
State of Maharashtra, the expression "purpose for which the
vehicle may be used" could be construed to mean that when

the vehicle is found to be carrying passengers more than the
number prescribed in the permit, the purpose of user is
otherwise. We are unable to accede to this contention as in
our opinion, the purpose would only refer to a contingency
when a vehicle having a permit of stage carriage is used as a
contract carriage or vice versa or where a vehicle having a
permit for stage carriage or contract carriage is used as a
goods vehicle and vice versa. But carrying passengers more
than the number specified in the permit will not be a violation
of the purpose for which the permit is granted. If the
legislature really wanted to confer power of detention on the
police officer for violation of any condition of the permit, then
there would not have been the necessity of adding the
expression "relating to the route on which or the area in
which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used". The
user of the aforesaid expression cannot be ignored nor can it
be said to be a tautology. We have also seen the Form of
permit (From P.Co. T.), meant in respect of a tourist vehicle,
which is issued under Rule 72(1)(ix) and Rule 74(6) of the
Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On seeing the
different columns, we are unable to accede to the contention
of the learned Counsel appearing for the State of
Maharashtra, that carrying passengers beyond the number
mentioned in Column 5, indicating the seating capacity,
would be a violation of the conditions of permit relating to
either the route or the area or the purpose for which the

permit is granted. In this view of the matter, we see no
infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble High
Court in the impugned judgment and the detention of the
vehicles has rightly been held to be unauthorised and
consequently, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be
without jurisdiction........."
23.2.1. Although, the interpretation of Section 207 of M.V. Act
was done by Hon'ble Apex Court in a different context, but
same would apply to Clause (c) to Section 149 (2) (a) (i)
of the Act.
23.3 Thus, if a vehicle has been or is being used in contravention
of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit
required under Subsection (1) of Section 66 or in
contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the
route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which
the vehicle may be used, if contravened, would amount to
violation of permit and not every contravention or violation of
condition of permit issued by the Transport Authority would
amount to violation of permit.
23.4 From the above referred ratios, it becomes clear that it is for
the insurer to verify before insuring the vehicle, as to whether
vehicle is having valid permit or not and, if insurer having
insured the vehicle without valid permit, it cannot seek
exemption from liability afterwards.

23.5 If it is found that owner has violated terms of the policy,
Tribunal can pass an order exonerating insurer but may also
pass and order of 'pay and recover'.
HOME

24. Whether an award passed by the Tribunal can be reviewed:
24.1 Many time claimant or opponent/s including insurer
prefer/s an application for review of award passed by the
Tribunal on the ground that the award on a question on which
the judgment of the Tribunal is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of Superior Court. To deal
with such kind of application, reference may be made to
Explanation of Order XLVII (47) Rule – 1 of C.P.C., 1908,
which reads as under:
Explanation of Order XLVII (47) Rule – 1 of
C.P.C.:
“The fact that the decision on a question of law
on which the judgment of the Court is based has
been reversed or modified by the subsequent
decision of a superior Court in any other case,
shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment”.
24.1.1. From the above referred provision, it becomes clear
that when an application for review of award, passed by the
Tribunal is moved on the ground that the award on a
question on which the judgment of the Tribunal is based has
been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of
Superior Court, such application can not be entertained.
24.2 Various High Courts have taken a view that Tribunal does
not have powers to modify, alter, recall and revers it's earlier
award. And if such an order is passed in review
petition/application, it is nullity, non est and void. Relying upon
the several decisions, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
N.I.Com. v.s Rajbir Sing, reported in 2012 AAC 3007 that tribunal
does not have powers to review.
24.3 Reference may also be made to the ratio laid down by

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CTO v/s Makkad Plastic
Agencies, reported in AIR 2011 SCW 2154, wherein it is observed
in para No.17 as under:
“… It is also now an established proposition of law that
review is a creature of the statute and such an order of
review could be passed only when an express power of
review is provided in the statute. In the absence of any
statutory provision for review, exercise of power of review
under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is
not permissible...”.
24.4 Bare reading of above referred observations of Hon'ble Apex
Court reveals the fact that review is a creature of the statute
and such an order of review could be passed only when an
express power of review is provided in the statute. As, there is
no provision for review in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, award
of the tribunal is not reviewable.
24.5 On the above referred issue, reference may also be made to
ratios laid down by Hon'ble Clacutta High Court in the case

reported in 2008 ACJ 1248 (DB) and N.I.Com. v/s Chhabirani,
reported in 2013 ACJ 1130 and ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Gauhati High Court in the case reported in 2008 ACJ 1248
(DB) and N.I.Com. v/s Nani Gopal Debnath, reported in 2012
ACJ 2720.

HOME

25. Details of Proposal Forms for Private Cars/Motorised Two
Wheelers Package Policy and Liability Only/ Act Policy:
25.1 Details above may be gathered from the India Motor Tariff.
Pleased See Section 5, PROPOSAL FORMS at page No.88 to 101.
HOME
26. Standard wordings in respect of the Policy including Premium
computation Table, Certificate of Insurance and Cover Note:
26.1. Details above may be gathered from the India Motor Tariff.
Pleased See Section 6, at page No.102 to 176.
26.1.1.Details can also be downloaded from IDRA web site by
tying/searching 'India Motor Tariff'.
HOME

27.Liability of registered owner, in case where Vehicle in question
is requisitioned by Government/Authority/Divisional Magistrate:
1. The car in question was requisitioned during the Assembly
Elections in the year 1993 by the SubDivisional Magistrate
Rampur through the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The said
vehicle was in possession as also under the control of the said
officer. On or about 17.11.1993 while the SubDivisional
Magistrate Rampur was travelling in the said vehicle, an
accident occurred as a result whereof a boy named Satish
Kumar sustained injuries. He later on expired. Under these
circumstances, who would be responsible to pay amount of
compensation? State Government or the Ownerdriver and
Insurance company of the said Car?
2. After considering several judgments, Hon'ble Apex court has

held that when a vehicle is requisitioned, the owner of the
vehicle has no other alternative but to handover the possession
to statutory authority/Government and once possession is
handed over and the accident resulted due to the negligent
driving of the driver of the Government, in such situation it
cannot be said that the owner has any control over said vehicle
and, therefore, under such situation, Owner and insurer are
not liable to pay amount of compensation but State
Government.
3. This ratio is laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, reported in AIR
2008 SC 735.

4. In another case before the Hon'ble Apex Court a Minibus was
hired by the Corporation and said minibus was being driven by
the driver provided by the registered owner and accident
occurred. Driver was supposed to drive as per the instructions
of the employee of the Corporation (Conductor), whether in
such circumstances, insurance company can be held liable?
1. Hon'ble Apex in the case reported in 2011 ACJ 2145, has
held that under such situation, insurer is liable to pay
amount of compensation.
5. In a case before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the vehicle in

question which belonged to the State of Gujarat was entrusted
to the Municipality for distribution of water to the citizens. It
was implicit in allowing the vehicle being used for such
purpose that the State of Gujarat which owned the vehicle also
caused or allowed any driver of the Municipality who was
engaged in the work of distribution of water to the citizens, to
use motor vehicle for the purpose and when the vehicle was
driven by the driver of the Municipality the accident occurred
because of the negligence of driver of Municipality. The issue
before Hon'ble Court was as to whether the insurer of the
vehicle is liable to pay the compensation under the provisions
of the Act or not?
1. It is held that the State, as the owner of the vehicle and
the respondent Insurance Company as its insurer were

also liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. This ratio is laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court in the case of Chief Officer, Bhavnagar
Municipality v/s Bachubhai Arjanbhai, reported in AIR
1996 Gujarat 51.
2. In a case before Hon'ble Apex Court the facts of the case
was: U.P. State Raod Transport Corporation took
Minibus on hire from its owner for plying on the route
alloted to Corporation by RTO. Said Minibus rammed
into a shop resulting in death of five persons. According
to agreement between the Corporation and owner of the
Minibus, said bus was given on hire by owner of the bus
along with insurance policy and driver would be
provided by the owner and said driver was supposed to
ply bus under the instructions of conductor appointed by
the Corporation and as such Corporation was having
overall and effective control on the Minibus and its
driver. In a claim petition, insurer admits that premium
for insurance of the Minibus was same if it is plied by the
owner himself or attached with Corporation. It was not
not even a case of the insurer that prior permission of the
insurer was required before attaching Minibus with
Corporation.
1. It is held that since Corporation has over all control of
the Minibus, it became the owner of the vehicle for

specified period and, therefore, insurer is liable to
indemnify the owner i.e. Corporation. Please refer to
ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
U.P. State Raod Transport Corporation v/s Kulsum,
reported in 2011 ACJ 2145.
HOME

28. Liability of Insurance Company in the case wherein the vehicle
involved in the accident was stolen.
28.1 The case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court was that stolen
car hit pedestrian resulting in his death. Said vehicle was stolen
much before the accident and Insurance company paid
compensation to the real owner and vehicle was already
transferred under subrogation right in favour of the insurance
company. In the said facts of the case it is held that owner of the
vehicle is insurance company and original owner cannot be held
liable to pay amount of compassion. United India Insurance
Com. Ltd. v/s Amaratta, reported in 2014 ACJ 1706 (Delhi).
28.2 In another case, accident was caused by unknown driver by
stolen vehicle which stolen prior to the date of accident. After the
accident, said vehicle was returned to original owner by Police.
Owner was not aware as to who was driving the said stolen
vehicle and was possessing valid licence or not. Insurance
company disputed its liability on the count that the driver of the
stolen vehicle was not possessing valid and effective licence.
Whether such stand of insurer is sustainable? Held The person
who committed theft and accident could not be traced by police
and, therefore, original owner cannot be held liable for the act
done by unknown person and defence of Insurer that driver of the
offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective licence
cannot be accepted. National Insurance Company v/s Golana,
reported in 2014 ACJ 1165 (Allahabad).
HOME

29. Whether executing court can pass an order of attachment of
Residential premises/home?
29.1 In the case of Prem Chand v/s Akashdeep, reported in
2014 ACJ 1467 (P&H), it is held that Executing court was
justified in proceeding against residential property of
judgmentdebtor and further held that special privileges given
u/s 60 (ccc) of CPC for enforcement of decree cannot be
applied in the cases of enforcement of an award.
HOME

30 . When possession of vehicle is taken over by the transferee
along with certificate of insurance, Insurance company is liable to
pay amount of compensation.
30.1 In the case before Hon'ble Apex Court a Tractortrailer
loaded with sand overturned and its driver sustained fatal
injuries. Said vehicle was transferred by its original owner to
the transferee and deceased was an employee of the transferee
but insurance policy subsisted on the date of accident in the
name of original owner. Whether in the said facts and
circumstance of the cases, insurance company can be held
liable to pay compensation? It is held by Hon'ble Apex Court
that since on the date of accident, ownership of the vehicle
stood transferred from its original owner to transferee and
premium for legal liability to person employed in connection
with operation and/or loading unloading of vehicle had been
paid and, therefore, insurance company is held liable to pay
amount of compensation. Mallamma v/s National Insurance
Company, reported in 2014 ACJ 1266 (SC).
HOME

31. Co mmencement of Policy and Breach of Policy:
31.1 Policy – commencement of premium accepted on 3.5.97
but cover note specified the effective date of commencement as
5.5.97, as 3.5.97 was holiday IC contended that at the date of
accident i.e.4.5.97, there was not effective policy in existence
whether IC is liable held yes contract of insurance comes in
to effect from the date of acceptance of premium more
particularly when IC had received the premium prior to the
date of accident. 2011 ACJ 1728 (BOM).
31.2 Accident occurred on 20.5.85 at 7.45 pm IP valid from
20.5.85 to 19.5.86 IP does not speak about the time of
commencement of policywhen policy is silent about the time
of its commencement, starting time has to be taken as from the
midnight of 20.5.85 and its ends at 2400 hrs on 19.5.86 Ic
held liable. 2011 ACJ 2394 (DEL).
31.3 An insurance policy, in law, could be issued from a

future date. A policy, however, which is issued from a future
date must be with the consent of the holder of the policy. The
insurance company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a
future date without the consent of the holder of a policy –
2009 (13) SCC370 – Blabir Kaur v/s N.I.A.Com.
31.4 U/s 147 (1) Insurance Act u/s 64VB IC tried to avoid
its liability on the ground that police has not come into

existence as verification of vehicle was not done whether
sustainable Held No once premium is paid, IC cannot avoid
its liability 2012 ACJ 1322.
31.5 Commencement of policy starts when? It starts when

entire amount of premium is paid/made and it does not make
any difference when policy is made effective. 2013 ACJ 2493
(Mad) O. I. Com. v/s Venkataraman, dated 18.07.2012.
31.6 Section 64VB – commencement of policy – whether IC
can defer assumption of risk to a later point of time other than
from the date and time of receipt of the premium? Held No.
Insurance Policy (IP) under the MV Act stand on differnet
footing than the other IP. 2014 ACJ 2847 (Chh) – SC
judgments followed.
31.7 One of the grounds which is available to the Insurance
Company for denying its statutory liability is that the policy is
void having been obtained by reason of nondisclosure of a
material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in
some material particular once a valid contract is entered into,
only because of a mistake, the name of original owner not
been mentioned in the certificates of registration, it cannot be
said that the contract itself is void unless it was shown that in
obtaining the said contract, a fraud has been practiced no
particulars of fraud pleaded IC held liable. 2009 (1) SCC 58.

31.8 Private vehicle breach of policy in FIR it is stated that
vehicle was hired IC disputed its liability relying on the word
‘hired’ in FIR eye witnesses deposed that vehicle was
‘borrowed’ from the friend and denied that it was ‘hired’
whether IC is liable held yes as IC has neither confronted the
witnesses with the statement made by them in FIR nor
examined the IO or RTO officer. 2011 ACJ 1482 (SIK).
31.9 Liability of IC in tariff, under 'Limits of Liability' it is
mentioned 'As required by Law' and not 'Act Policy' – words
explained. In such situation, IC is liable to pay awarded by the
Tribunal. 2012 AAC 3136.
31.10 Farmer's Package Policy Tractortrolley purpose – use
of guideline for assessment of liability of IC. 2014 ACJ 1691
(Mad).
11 Contention that accident occurred on 27.11.1992 at 12.30
pm and policy was obtained at 3.30 pm on the same day
without disclosing fact accident and, therefore, IC is not liable.
Whether sustainable? Held No. Since IC failed to prove that
policy came into existence w.e.f. 27.11.1992 at 3.30 pm.
2015 ACJ 1347 (Jhr).
12 – Owner of the offending vehicle did not file written

statement neither adduced any evidence that before the date of
accident, premium was paid by him and IC issued Cover note
on the basis. IC also disputed that said cover note was forged
– Under these circumstances, IC held not liable to pay
compensation. 2015 ACJ 1824 (Bom).
HOME

32. Which kind of licence required for LMVLGVHGVHTVMGV:
32. A Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan
v/s Oriental insurance Company, reported in 2016 (0)
Supreme 144, after considering series of Judgments has
referred the issue qua – whether for the drivers having licence
to drive LMV there is a necessity of obtaining endorsment to
drive the Transport vehicle when the Transport vehicle is of
class LMV
32.1 Driver was holding licence to ply ‘light motor vehicle’

drove ‘pick up jeep’ which is transport vehicle whether IC is
liable held no w.e.f 29.03.2001, no person can said to hold
an effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle if he only
holds a licence entitling him to drive ‘light motor vehicle’
when there is no endorsement on driving licence to drive
transport vehicle, IC is not liable. 2008 ACJ 721 (SC), 2011
ACJ 2115 (HP), 2014 ACJ 1128.
But see 2014 ACJ 1117 Tractor whether Non transport
vehicle or not – which kind of licence is required.
32.2 Driving licence liability of IC ‘light motor vehicle’

driver had licence to ply auto rickshaw and was driving auto
rickshaw delivery van, which caused accidentTribunal held
that driver was not holding valid licence whether sustainable
held no further held that use of vehicle for carriage of goods
does not take the auto rickshaw outside the scope and

definition of ‘light motor vehicle’, which includes a transport
vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed permissible
limit of 7500kgs lastly held that driver was holding valid
licence to drive and IC is liable. 2011 ACJ 1592 (ORI), 2014
ACJ 1037, 2014 ACJ 2148, 2014 ACJ 2259 (All), 2014 ACJ
2471 (Guj), 2014 ACJ 2703 (P&H).
32.3 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 u/s. 149, 163A, 166 and 170
Vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle Driver was holder
of licence to drive LMV Driver not holding licence to drive
commercial vehicle Breach of contractual condition of
insurance Owner of vehicle cannot contend that he has no
liability to verify as to whether driver possessed a valid licence
Extent of third party liability of insurer Death of a 12year
girl in accident Claimants are from poor background After
having suffered mental agony, not proper to send them for
another round of litigation Insurer directed to pay to
claimants and then recover from the owner in view of
Nanjappan's case [2005 SCC (Cri.) 148].
32.4 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 10(2) motor accident
claim liability of insurer appellant insurance company
cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to
the claimants for the cause of death in road accident which
had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooterist
who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the

vehicle on the day of accident scooterist was possessing
driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally
different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of S.
10(2) of the Act. 2008(12) SCC 385 – Zahirunisha.
32.5 Death of workman who was sitting on the mudguard
IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that driver was
holding License to drive heavy transport vehicle but he was
driving tractor which did not conform to the particular
category License for higher category of vehicle will not
amount to valid and effective DL to drive a vehicle of another
category IC is held not liable. 2012 ACJ 179.
32.6 licence endorsement on licence Specific endorsement
to ply a transport vehicle is necessary.
2013 ACJ 487 & 668 – IMP Relied on 2006 ACJ 1336 Kusum
Rai, 2008 ACJ 627 N.I. A.Co. v/s Prabhulal , 2008 ACJ 721,
N.I.Com. v/s Annappa Irappa Nesaria (wherein it is held that
endorsement is required from 28.03.2001), 2009 ACJ 1141,
O.I.Com. v/s Angad Kol (wherein it is held that for non
passenger/ non transport vehicles, licences are issued for 20
years whereas for passengers vehicles they are issued for 3
years only).
32.7 LMV whether tractor is light motor vehicle? Held yes,
as defined u/s 2(21) of the Act. 2013 ACJ 1160, 2014 ACJ –
Sudha v/s Dalip Singh (P&H), 2014 ACJ 2817 (Chh).

32.8 Tractor is LMV and Car /Jeep are also LMV and,
therefore, driver who was holding DL to drive LMV (Car/Jeep)
can also drive Tractor. 2013 ACJ 2679 Ghansham v/s
O.I.Com.
30.9 Tractor – DL LMV & HTV Tractor is defined u/s 2(44)
Whether for driving Tractor, separate licence is required?
Held Yes. 2014 ACJ 854 (P&H).
32.10 Badge Vehicle of same category 2014 ACJ 1180.
LMV can be equated with LGV for the purpose of Driving
Licence (DL)? Held – yes. Same cannot be termed as breach
of IP.
2014 ACJ 2873 (SC) Kulwant Singh v/s OI Com. S.
Iyyappa v/s UII Com, 2013 ACJ 1944 followed.
32.11 DL LMV – LGV – Accident occurred prior to the

amendment which came into effect from of 21.03.2001
Driver was holding DL to drive LMV but was driving LGV –
Whether IC can be held liable? Held Yes. 2008 ACJ
721(SC) Annappa Irappa Nesaria. 2014 ACJ 1828 (Raj).
32.12 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 u/s. 149, 163A, 166 and
170 Vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle Driver was
holder of licence to drive LMV Driver not holding licence to
drive commercial vehicle Breach of contractual condition of

insurance Owner of vehicle cannot contend that he has no
liability to verify as to whether driver possessed a valid licence
Extent of third party liability of insurer Death of a 12year
girl in accident Claimants are from poor background After
having suffered mental agony, not proper to send them for
another round of litigation Insurer directed to pay to
claimants and then recover from the owner in view of
Nanjappan's case [2005 SCC (Cri.) 148].
2006(2) GLH 15 (SC) – N.I.A Com v/s Kusum Rai.
Following Kusum Rai judgment, Delhi High Court in the case
of O I Com. v/s Shahnawaz, reorted in 2014 ACJ 2124 has
held that driver of offending vehicle was possessinng lincence
to ply LMV (Nontransport) but was plying Tata Sumo
registered as Tourist Taxi and, therefore, IC is not liable to pay
compensation.
32.13 Liability of IC to avoid liability, IC had to prove that
owner of the vehicle knew that driver was not having valid
driving licence Driver was having licence to ply LMV, MGV
and HGV IC did not led any evidence to prove that owner
knew about driver being incompetent to ply passenger vehicle.
2012 AAC 3302 (J & K) N.I. Com. v/s Mst. Bakhta., 2014 ACJ
1037.
32.14 Central M.V. Rules Rule 16 Tractor Driving licence
Rule 16 provides that every licence issued or renewed shall be

in Form VI which provides for grant of licence in respect of
LMV or Transport Vehicle amongst other categories but there is
no specific entry for issuance of licence for driving a Tractor.
As per Section 2(44), by definition Tractor is LMV and,
therefore, when driver has licence to ply LMV, he can also ply
Tractor. 2014 ACJ (P&H).
32.15 DL – Valid DL – IC disputed its liability on the ground
that driver of offending vehicle was holding DL for driving
LMV but actually at the time time accident, he was driving
LMV (commercial) – liability to prove that driver of offending
vehicle had no valid DL at the time accident, is on the shoulder
of IC. 2015 ACJ 340 (Del) but also see 2015 ACJ 576 (AP).
HOME

33. Registration of Vehicle/Number Plate:
33.1 Registration number of offending vehicle not disclosed
at the time of filling of FIR driver of offending vehicle,
convicted by criminal court vehicle number, disclosed
afterwards does not lead to the conclusion that there is
collusion between claimant and driver of offending vehicle.
2012 ACJ 2176 (Del).
33.2 Use of vehicle without the registration certificate

temporary registration expired on the date of accident owner
is not entitled to get anything under the Own Damage Claim.
2014 ACJ 2421 (SC).
33.3 Registration Certificate Expiry of liability of IC non

renewal if RC on the date of accident – same is not illegality
but irregularity and same will not absolve IC from its liability.
2014 ACJ 2399 (Kant) But contrary view is taken in 2014 ACJ
2665 (MP).

33.4 U/s 39 – Registration of vehicle – temporary
registration – expired before the date of accident – under this
circumstances, IC has to prove breach of terms of Policy as
envisaged in Section 149(2) of the MV Act if IC fails to prove
this, it liable to pay compensation first and then recover from
Driver/owner. 2015 ACJ 236 (Kar).
HOME

34. Important Judgments on Section 140 of the M.V. Act.
34.1 U/S 140 – No Fault Liability – Claimant need not to plea and
establish negligence and he is only required to prove that injuries
sustained due to vehicular accident. 2011 ACJ 1603 (Bombay)
34.2 NFL application not filled along with main petition Tribunal
rejected the application filed later on HC confirmed the said order
whether valid held no claimant can file NFL u/s 140 at any time
during pendency of main claim petition. 2010 (8) SCC 620.
34.3 No order of investment can be passed in the order passed u/s
140 of the M. V. Act. First Appeal 1749 of 2012 (Coram Jst. Harsha
Devani).
34.4 Constructive res judicata Whether order passed u/s 140 of

the Act, qua negligence of the driver is binding to the tribunal as
constructive res judicata, while deciding the claim petition u/s 166 of
the Act? Held Yes. F.A. No. 264 of 2005 dated 15/02/2013, Minor
Siddharth Makranbhai. 2012 (2) GLH 465 Siddik U. Solanki.
Judgment delivered in the case of 2012 (2) GLH 465 Siddik U.
Solanki is modified in First Appeal No.2103 of 2005 and allied
matters, reported in 2015 STPL(Web) 1988 GUJ = 2015 ACC
630(Guj)= 2016(1) GLH 68.
34.5 U/s 140 Whether amount paid u/s 140 of the can be
recovered in case if the main claim petition is dismissed Held No.
2014 ACJ 708 (Raj) – SC judgment in the case of O I Com. v/s Angad
Kol, reported in 2009 ACJ 1411, para Nos. 4 to 8 relied upon

34.6 An application u/s 140 has to be decided as expeditiously as
possible – an order of hear the same along with the main claim
petition is bad. 2013 ACJ 1371 (Bom).
HOME

35. Damage to the Vehicle and/or property:
Following are the important judgments concerning Damage to the
Vehicle and/or property.
1 Claim petition for damage to the property death of

elephant Tribunal awarded amount of compensation of
Rs.5,39,100; including RS.1,20,000 for loss of income from
elephant Held such an award is not justified when claim
petition is preferred for damage to the property Rs.1,20,000/
reduced by HC. 2013 ACJ 1279 (Ker).
2 Damage to the property Tenant of the property filed claim
petition for damage to property caused by the vehicular
accident Tribunal dismissed it on the ground that tenant is
not the owner and eviction petition is pending Whether
sustainable Held No. 2013 ACJ 1292 (Raj).
3 Damage to property Truck dashed with auto rickshaw

Insurance Company (IC) of truck liable to pay only Rs.6,000/
under the Act but Tribunal can direct the IC to pay entire
amount and in return IC may recover the additional amount
from the driver and owner of Truck. 2013 ACJ 1830 (Jar).
4 Damage to goods loaded in the Truck Whether IC is liable
to make good to such damage? Held No. IC is liable to make
good for damage to the property of TP. 2014 ACJ 915 (HP).

5 Damage to property limits of liability of IC – Jeep sustained
damage due to negligent driving of the driver of the Truck –
Truck was covered under the comprehensive policy Whether
IC of truck is liable to pay compensation to the owner of Jeep
in excess of Rs.6,000/? Held No. 2015 ACJ 1579 (P&H).
6 Damage to vehicle – claim for compensation from

tortfeasors, held, maintainable even if owner of vehicle has
received any amount from his IC under comprehensive
Insurance Policy. It is further held that even if owner of the
vehicle has received any amount of compensation from
Insurance Company under comprehensive policy, claim for
compensation from tortfeasor is maintainable. Also held that
amount so received under the comprehensive police shall be
deducted from the compensation awarded from the tortfeasor,
as owner is not entitled to get more than the actual damage
caused to him. 2015 (2) GLR 1446 – UII Com v/s
Hasumatiben Kanubhai Patel.
HOME

36. J urisdiction of Tribunal:
Following are the relevant judgments on the point of
Jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles Tribunal.
1 Jurisdiction – claimant residing in District H insurance

company is also having office in District C whether the
Tribunal at District C has jurisdiction to entertain the claim
petition held yes. 2009 ACJ 564 (SC).
2 Accident occurred in Nepal while deceased was on

pilgrimage Journey started from India Opponents are Indian
citizens and having offices in India Whether claim petition in
India is maintainable Held Yes. 2012 ACJ 1452 ((P&H).
3 Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat– guideline. 2012 ACJ
1608.
4 In accident vehicle got damaged claim petition filed against
one of the IC claim petition, partly allowed claimant
preferred another application against another IC whether
maintainable? Held No. 2012 AAC 2944 (Chh) SC
judgments followed.
5 Jurisdiction Damage to property of owner whether

maintainable? Held No tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain
only those applications wherein damage is caused to property

of the third party. 2005 ACJ (SC) 1, Dhanraj v/s N.I.A. Com is
relied upon. 2012 ACJ 2737.
6 Jurisdiction after the death of the her husband, deceased
was staying with her brother whether claim petition can be
preferred at the place where she is staying with her brother?
held Yes. 2012 ACJ 2811.
7 U/s 166(2) – jurisdiction of Tribunal Claimant migrant

labourer Appeal by insurer Award amount not disputed
Setting aside of award on ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction Would only result in retrial before appropriate
Tribunal S.C. would exercise powers under Art.142 to do
complete justice in such a case. AIR 2009 SC 1022 Mantoo
Sarkar v/s O.I. Com. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 2512 (MP).
7A – Territorial Jurisdiction – even if accident occurred out
the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal and claimant and
driver/owner staying out side the territorial jurisdiction of
tribunal, claim petition is maintainable, if IC is carrying
business with the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal. 2016 (3)
SCC 43 – Malati Sardar v/s N I Com.
8 Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal Claim for loss of business
income due to nonuse of vehicle Falls under head damage to
property Claims Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain

and decide such claim. AIR 2007 Guj 39 but also see 2013
ACJ 1732 (P & H).
9 Jurisdiction where a claim petition is maintainable Good
discussion. 2013 ACJ 1787.
10 Cause of action Jurisdiction Accident occurred in Nepal
Bus was registered in India Whether a claim petition is
maintainable in India? Held No. 2013 ACJ 1807 (Bih).
11 Estoppel Consumer court held that driver was holding

valid licence and IC is directed to pay amount by Consumer
court Whether IC can take same defence before the MAC
Tribunal Held No. IC is estopped from raising such stand.
2014 ACJ (Kar) 2736.
12 U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion accident

occurred prior to the said deletion claim petition filed after
deletion and since years after the accident whether claim
petition is maintainable? Held Yes.
13 Limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas accident
occurred in the year 1990 whether claim petition is time
barred? held no. 2011 ACJ 1585 (Jark).

14 Limitation U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion
accident occurred prior to the said deletion claim petition filed
after deletion and since years after the accident whether
claim petition is maintainable? Held Yes. 2015 ACJ 221
(Chh).
15 Tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground that

accident is not proved whether Tribunal erred? held yes
Tribunal is supposed to conduct ‘inquiry’ not ‘trial’ in claim
petition and summery procedure has to be evolved Tribunal
could have invoked power envisaged u/s 165 of Evidence Act.
2011 ACJ 1475 (Del).
HOME

37. Helper Cleaner Coolie:
1Risk of cleaner engaged on goods vehicle is covered by

proviso (i) (c) of section 147(1) of MV Act? Held yes
insurance company is held liable to pay compensation to the
cleaner. 2005 ACJ 1323(SC), 2007 ACJ 291(AP), 2011 ACJ
1868 (AP), 2014 ACJ 1776 (Ori).
But for the case of cleaner of bus please see 2014 ACJ 1739
(AP) – IC held liable.
2 Helper Act Policy whether, helper can be treated as

passenger? Held No. SC judgment followed. 2012 ACJ 2554
(GAU).
3 Goods vehicle Cleaner sustained injuries he filed claim

petition under the M.V. Act whether, IC is liable? Held Yes
but only to an extent of amount of compensation admissible
under the W.C. Act. 2013 ACJ 1025.
4 Death of helper excavator dashed with the pillar and helper
died because, pillar fell on the helper IC sought to avoid its
liability on the ground that helper is the employee of the hirer
and therefore, IC is not liable – Whether sustainable held – No
As deceased was not hired on vehicle neither he was
travelling in the said vehicle. 2013 ACJ 1049.

5163A Driver and Cleaner sustained injuries while unloading
goods Whether claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable?
Held Yes. 2014 ACJ 1206.
6 Helper of the public service vehicle is entitled to recover

amount of compensation from IC. 2015 ACJ 1632 (Ori)
followed 2013 ACJ 2205 (SC) Ramachandra v/s Regional
Manager.
HOME

38. Premium and Additional Premium:
1 Act policy goods vehicle payment of additional premium

whether risk of person engaged in loading/unloading is
covered and IC is liable to pay amount of compensation? held
yes 2011 ACJ 1762 (KER).
2 Public risk policy extent of liability of IC truck hitting

scooter resulting in death of pillion rider premium was paid
for public risk liability which was more than the prescribed for
the act liability whether in this case liability of IC is limited as
per the act? –held no public risk is wider term and covers
entire risk faced by the owner of vehicle public risk would
cover unlimited amount of risk IC is liable 2010 ACJ 2783
(GUJ), 2011 ACJ 2029 (DEL).
3 Payment of premium was made on 6.12.2003 IC received

payment without there being all details of the vehicle and
issued policy on 29.1.2004 – Accident occurred on 28.1.2004
whether in such situation IC can be held liable? Held – Yes.
2013 ACJ 1344 (J&K).
HOME

39. DriverOwner:
1 Two vehicular not driven by owner but the deceased no

additional premium was paid to cover the risk of other than
the owner of vehicleWhether IC is liable held no 2009 ACJ
998 (SC).
2 Act policy deceased was not the owner of the car IC seeks
to avoid its liability on the ground that deceased was driving
the car without the consent of the owner owner deposed that
deceased was driving the car with his consent whether IC is
liable held no deceased stepped in to the shoes of the owner
2009 ACJ 2020 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2251 (P&H).
3 Death of the owner of the truck – IC disputed its liability on
the ground that there is “Act policy’ and risk only TP is
covered sustainable held no it was proved by the claimant
that extra premium was paid and IC has deliberately not
mentioned the nature of policy in the cover note IC failed to
discharge its burden and prove that policy was ‘Act policy’ and
IC’s liability was restricted to statutory liability IC held liable.
2011 ACJ 2275 (SIK)
4 S. 147, 166 motor accident owner himself involved in
accident, resulting in his death he himself was negligent
accident did not involve any other motor vehicle liability of

Insurance Company claim petition under S. 166
maintainability of held, liability of insurercompany is to the
extent of indemnification of insured against injured persons, a
third person or in respect of damages of property if insured
cannot be fastened with any liability, question not arise
additional premium under the insurance policy was not paid in
respect of entire risk of death or bodily injury of owner of
vehicle present case did not fall under S. 147(b) as it covers a
risk of a third party only 2007(9) SCC 263 – Jumma Shaha.
5 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 147 question for

consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would cover
risk of injury to owner of vehicle also Tribunal directed driver
and insurance company to pay compensation to appellant
owner of vehicle appellant challenged order whereby it was
held that as appellant was owner of vehicle insurance company
is not liable to pay him any compensation insurance policy
covers liability incurred by insured in respect of death of or
bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or damage to any
property of third party whether premium paid under heading
'Own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury
held, S. 147 does not require insurance company to assume
risk for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle where
owner of vehicle has no liability to third party, insurance
company also has no liability also it has not been shown that
policy covered any risk for injury to owner himself premium

paid under heading 'Own damage' does not cover liability
towards personal injury premium is towards damage to
vehicle and not for injury to person of owner appeal
dismissed. 2004 (8) SCC 553 – Dhanraj v/s N.I. A. Com.

6 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 147 question for
consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would cover
risk of injury to owner of vehicle also Tribunal directed driver
and insurance company to pay compensation to appellant
owner of vehicle appellant challenged order whereby it was
held that as appellant was owner of vehicle insurance company
is not liable to pay him any compensation insurance policy
covers liability incurred by insured in respect of death of or
bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or damage to any
property of third party whether premium paid under heading
'Own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury
held, S. 147 does not require insurance company to assume
risk for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle where
owner of vehicle has no liability to third party insurance
company has no liability also it has not been shown that
policy covered any risk for injury to owner himself premium
paid under heading 'Own damage' does not cover liability
towards personal injury premium is towards damage to
vehicle and not for injury to person of owner appeal
dismissed. 2009(2) SCC 417 –N.I.A v/s Saddanand Mukhi.

7 Managing Trustee died in the accident Vehicle was
registered in his name whether he can be held as owner?
Held No. 2012 ACJ 1886.
8 Nonjoinder of driver IC did not agitate the same during
trial, though plea of nonjoinder was taken in WS Whether,
such plea can be allowed to be raised at the time of final
hearing or appeal? Held No. 2012 ACJ 2647. SC judgments
followed.
9 Act policy – Goods vehicle Whether IC is liable to pay

compensation to the employees of the hirer? Held No IC is
liable to pay compensation only to the employees of owners.
2013 ACJ 1 Sanjeev Samrat.
10 Death of the owner of the jeep in such case, IC is not liable
to pay compensation. 2013 ACJ 1382. (Del).
11 Motorcycle Motorcyclist driving motorcycle at moderate

speed applied brake in stagnant rain water, vehicle skidded
and he sustained injuries IP cover risk of DriverOwner
Tribunal found that there was no negligence on the part of the
motorcyclist Whether in such situation IC is liable? Held Yes
In view of the IMT 15. 2014 ACJ 721 (Mad).
12 Ownerdriver – Wife is the owner of the vehicle which bing

driven by deceased husband whether husband can be said to
be third party for wife? Held No. As he stepped in to the
shoe of the owner Only entitled for Rs.2,00,000. 2014 ACJ
1524 (UK).
Also see 2014 ACJ 1574 (Del), wherein it is held that as per
IMT GR36 personal accident cover is available to the owner of
insured vehicle holding valid and effective licence but anybody
driving the vehicle with or without permission of the owner
cannot be taken as ownerdriver.
And Also deceased stepped into the shoe of the owner when
IC failed to prove that accident occurred due to sole negligence
of the deceased, claim petition u/s 163A cannot be turned
down. 2015 ACJ 2739 (AP) Several SC judgments relied
upon.
13 Ownercumdriver – Additional premium of Rs.2,00,000/

paid – Whether IC is liable to pay? Held Yes as same is
covered under compulsory accident cover. 2014 ACJ 2195
(Mad).
14 Driver on deputation whether temporary employer is

liable to make good to the temporary employee who is working
on deputation with it? Held Yes. 2014 ACJ 2791 (Bom).

15 Owner travelling along with his goods which was being
driven by driver and accident occurred and owner sustain
injuries – whether IC is liable to pay compensation? Held No.
As owner cannt be held to be Third Party. 2014 ACJ 2869
(AP) Dhanraj v/s NIA Com, 2005 ACJ 1 (SC) followed.
16 Jeep driven by father of the owner policy covers only six
passengers actually 11 passengers were travelling jeep fell in
to ditch resulting death of all passengers IC is liable not for
all claimant IC is directed to pay compensation and further
ordered to recover from the owner and driver. 2011 AIR SCW
2802 K.M. Poonam.
17 Driverowner held responsible for causing the accident

other vehicle which dashed with the vehicle of driverowner,
did not have valid and effective policy Tribunal jointly held
driverowner and driver of the other vehicle responsible in the
said accident and directed the IC of the driverowner to pay
compensation whether sustainable Held No As policy covers
only TP and not owner. 2013 ACJ 393 (Cal) SC judgments
followed.
18 – Driverowner owner was driving jeep and sustained fatal
injuries – whether IC can be held responsible? Held – yes – as
per Section 2(9) of M V Act, any person behind the steering
wheel is a driver and owner of the vehicle would also be a

driver – if policy is comprehensive and risk of the driver is
covered under such policy then IC can be held responsible.
2015 ACJ 2833 (All).
19 – Motor cycle of the owner was borrowed – met with an
accident with truck – additional premium of was paid to driver
the risk of Driverowner – whether borrower is entitled to
claim compensation as driver of the two wheeler? Held Yes.
As term driver is explained in IC as ”any person including the
insured”. 2016 ACJ 47 (P&H).
HOME

40. Vehicle hired/leased:
1 Liability of IC minibus hired by Corporation along with IP
driver provided by the owner who was supposed to drive as
per the instruction of the conductor, who is employee of
Corporation accident whether IC is liable held yes 2011
ACJ 2145 (SC), 2014 ACJ 1274 (AP) – UII Com v/s
Sharapuram Balavva.
2 Owner Hirer Lease Buses hired by Corporation and plied
them on the routes alloted to Corporation. Injuries by such
buses Whether IC is liable Held – Yes. 2013 ACJ 1593 (FB),
2014 ACJ 1323 (Kar), 2014 ACJ 1432 (AP), but 2014 ACJ
1605 (Mad) NII Com. v/s K. Vaijayanthimala., 2015 ACJ 2675
(All), 2011 ACJ 2145 (SC) – UPRTC v/s Rajeshwari, 2015 ACJ
1 (SC) HDFC bank v/s Reshma, 2015 ACJ 2849 (SC) =
2016(2) SCC 382 Karnataka SRTC v/s New India Assurance
Com.
3 Vehicle on lease Owner leased his vehicle to State

Department Driver of owner met with accident Whether
State is liable? Held Yes As per Section 2(30), owner of the
vehicle includes a person in possession of vehicle subject to
agreement of lease State held to owner and held responsible
to pay amount of compassion. 2014 ACJ 893 (Gau).

4 OwnerHirer – Van hirer by courier company under an
agreement and as per the conditions of the agreement, owner
was required to take comprehensive policy No evidence that
driver was driving Van under the direction and supervision of
the hirer Courier Com. Whether Hirer is liable? Held No.
2014 ACJ 1790 (Mad).
5 Truck was taken on hire along with its driver by PWD for
constriction of road – when vehicles was being driven by driver
under the instruction of officer of PWD, accident occurred –
Whether PWD can held responsible to pay compensation?
Held – Yes. 2015 ACJ 1162 (HP).
HOME
4 1
.
Notes
:
HOME

Motor Accident Claim Petition Reference Manual Updated Upto MARCH, 2016

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Motor Accident Claim Petition Reference Manual Updated Upto MARCH, 2016

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MOTOR ACCIDENT

Prepared by Hanif. S. Mulia

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.2

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.3

32 Which kind of licence required for LMV­LGV­HGV­HTV­ 123

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.4

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.5

While deciding a claim petition, preferred under the Motor

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.6

3.1 The Bench comprising of Three Hon'ble Lordships of

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.7

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.8

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.9

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.10

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.11

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.12

Age of the Deceased Multiplier

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.13

There are difference of opinion as to what should be the

In para No.11 of the Sarla Verama's (supra) judgment it is

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.14

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.15

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.16

4.4 From the above referred observations, it becomes

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.17

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.18

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.19

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.20

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.21

4.15 In 2015 STPL(Web) 204 SC Shashikala v/s

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.22

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.23

5.2 Compensation in the case, where an injured victim is

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.24

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.25

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.26

5.3 Determination of permanent Partial Disablement of the

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.27

5.3.2. In the said formula, 'A' stands for higher value of

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.28

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.29

5.3.3.1. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.32

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.33

5.3.3.2. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.35

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.36

5.3.3.4. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.38

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.39

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.40

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.41

Particulars Cervical Thoracic spine Lumber Spine

In the curves ranging above 60 0, cardio­pulmonary

For kyphosis of lumbar and cervical spine 5% and 7%

Particulars Normal Weak Paralysed

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.43

5.3.3.5. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.44

Sr. No Particulars of Amputation Permanent Partial

Particulars IIndex Middl Ring Little

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.45

MACP REFERENCE MANUAL - H S MULIA PAGE NO.46

32 Which kind of licence required for LMVLGVHGVHTV 123

In the curves ranging above 60 0, cardiopulmonary

9.4.1 Normally, Tractortrailer/trolley is used for